The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Hillcrest

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

2 Upper Station Road, Staplehill, Bristol, BS16 4LY (0117) 957 4966

Provided and run by:
Mrs Sarah Louise Howick and Mr Simon Parker

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

18 November 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection, which meant the staff and the provider did not know we would be visiting. The inspection was carried out by one inspector on the 18 November 2015.

Hillcrest provides accommodation, personal care and support for up to 4 people. There were four people living in the home at the time of the visit. People who live at the home have a learning disability. People had their own bedroom and shared the lounge and kitchen with the other occupants. The home was close to the shops and other amenities

There was a registered manager in post. The registered manager was also one of the owners of the business. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There was a lack of formal systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service. This included seeking the views of people and their representatives through surveys. Staff did not always receive the training needed to meet people’s needs effectively. Whilst staff had received some training it was not clear how often this should be updated and there were gaps in what the provider expected staff to complete. Staff had not been trained in food hygiene.

People could not be confident that they were safe in the event of a fire. This was because staff had not taken part in regular fire drills. There were delays in making repairs for people to be safe in the event of a fire.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because there were clear procedures in place to recognise and respond to abuse and staff had been trained in how to follow the procedures. Systems were in place to ensure people were safe including risk management, checks on the environment and safe recruitment processes. People received their medicines safely.

Systems were in place to ensure that complaints were responded to, with action taken to improve the service provided. There had not been any recent complaints.

People were involved in making decisions about their care. People had a care plan that clearly described how they wanted to be supported. People had opportunities to take part in activities both in the home and the local community. People were encouraged to be independent. Other health and social care professionals were involved in the care of the people living at Hillcrest.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting. They were caring in their approach to people. Staff told us they were supported in their role and met with the registered manager regularly to discuss their performance and any training needs.

The registered manager regularly visited the service to speak with staff and people and to work alongside the team. They were knowledgeable about the people living at Hillcrest and it was evident positive relationships had been built.

We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

15 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

When we inspected the home in October 2013 we found that the provider had not always carried out thorough checks on staff before they were employed. There was a lack of information to demonstrate that staff had received training and supervision and systems in place to monitor the quality of the service were not effective.

When we returned in January 2014 we found improvements had been made. New members of staff now underwent thorough checks. We saw that records of training and supervision had been maintained and that a training plan was in place for the coming years to address any staff training needs.

We saw that surveys had been carried out to monitor the quality of the service people received and the provider had introduced a complaints system tailored to the needs of people who did not communicate verbally.

5 August 2013

During a routine inspection

Staff had a good understanding of the importance of consent and asked people's permission before allowing us to look at their care records. Staff working at the home spoke kindly and appropriately with people and demonstrated warmth and friendliness. It was apparent people living at the home were relaxed and felt secure with staff. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their personalities and care needs.

People received a varied diet which was based on staff knowledge of what they liked and disliked. Staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink.

People received their medicines safely.

The provider was not operating safe recruitment and had employed one person without carrying out robust checks. The provider did not have an effective system in place to monitor the quality of the service.

10 September 2012

During a routine inspection

The people living at the home were unable to communicate with us verbally. We observed interactions with staff in the communal areas of the home and throughout most of our visit were able to hear staff interacting with people. Staff respected people's dignity and privacy.

Staff spoke kindly to people and communicated using simple and clear language. One member of staff said, "If we verbalise it properly people can choose".

Independence and community involvement were promoted. People accessed the community regularly visiting local shops to take part in food shopping and also went to the pub regularly. People attended day centres and socialised with people living at the provider's other home.

Care records contained easy-read care plans which included information on people's likes and dislikes and their families were regularly consulted about their care. Staff knew people who lived at the home well and we saw that relationships were warm, relaxed and friendly. Staff spoke appropriately to people and were attentive to people's needs. Staff supported people to engage in activities.

Staff were trained and felt well supported by the management of the home. They told us they enjoyed their job and felt competent and confident.

The registered manager had clear knowledge of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards but neither they nor the staff we spoke with had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it would apply to the people living at the home.