Hillcrest House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were seen as individuals and families said they thought the staff understood the needs of the people. However, some of the care records we saw were not person-centred nor regularly reviewed in response to people’s changing needs. In an annual review of one person’s care, it was documented that litter picking was a goal followed by the person purchasing ‘treats’. There was no evidence this was based on the person’s individual activities. The term ‘treats’ was disrespectful in relation to the person's rights to make purchases with their own money. We saw people being asked what they would like to do and we received mixed feedback from families as to whether they or the individual had had any involvement in care planning.

People’s relatives did not have specific feedback to share on this quality statement People were not in control over who came into their home. The provider had not always been mindful of people’s personalities and needs when considering new people moving in and taken steps to ensure that people got on before any direct transition planning took place. Staff were not specifically matched to work at the home, to ensure they shared interests and hobbies with the people they supported. Staff did understand the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked to ensure that typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against such as liaising with other health professionals so arrangements were in place to support people to attend health appointments to minimise people’s anxiety and distress.

Families did not share any concerns with us in this area. They told us they had seen personal support plans and knew how to access them if needed. There was regular communication with families. People’s communication needs were identified and appropriate communications aids were put in place. Information was accessible, we saw Easy read documents and visual aids in the Home. Staff knew how each person communicated.

Families told us they had been asked to give feedback about their loved-one’s experience of care and they knew who to contact if they wished to raise any concerns. We saw there was information available to people about how they could raise a concern in an easy read format with pictures. However, further consideration was needed to ensure all people had access to how they could raise a concern in a format which met their assessed individual communication needs.

Families did not have specific feedback to share on this quality statement We found the service did make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There was information available for staff to take with them when supporting people at medical appointments. There was a protocol put in place for access to appointments for one person, the service had liaised with other health professionals, however, this needed to be developed further to ensure staff were fully equipped to manage any distress or trauma caused for the person.

Overall, the feedback we received from people’s families was that they did not feel people were accessing as many activities as they had been in the community, so people were not experiencing as full a life as they possibly could. Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

We received mixed responses from people’s relatives about goals and aspirations. One family member said there were goals in place for day to day achievements such as being able to be more independent with personal care. Another said there were no goals and another said there was a need to listen and develop goals. We saw from people’s care records there were goals and outcomes. These were very limited to short term goals. We saw no information about how people were to be supported to make decisions about their future care and support, including those relating to potential medical and psychological needs and their wishes for end of their life. The registered manager told us they had recently tried to discuss end of life planning with families, but this had not been well received. We found no plan in place to revisit the subject in a different way.