Hilltop Court Nursing Home

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 provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were not receiving care that was personalised and met their needs. Whilst care plans were in place they contained too much generic information about policy and procedure to be meaningful. Staff fed back that the care plans were difficult to read and obtain the information about people’s needs that they required. Information about people’s life history was available in some people’s care records, but this had not been incorporated to make care delivery truly personalised. Staff were able to given examples of how they supported people with personalised care but this was not consistently observed in practice or reflected within care records.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People were not consistently receiving good quality and consistent care. We noted there were improvements in how people were supported after our first site visit but were not assured that this was sustainable based on the feedback we received. One professional commented, “The concern is that the staff team do not have any consistency in how they approach residents and do not maintain the advice/input from our team.” Many of the concerns we noted at this assessment had been found and raised at previous inspections or by other stakeholders as part of their monitoring processes.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People had communication care plans in place, but these were very generic and lacked detail about people’s preference in relation to communication. We reviewed one person’s care records that indicated they had special communication needs. However, the care plan lacked any detail or references to what these needs were. There was limited evidence of adaptations to aid communication, such as pictorial menus. The provider had resources available to adapt the format of information where this was needed.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was limited evidence of how people and families were involved in making decisions about the service and how feedback was encouraged. A survey had been completed in relation to the mealtime experience but there was no evidence of surveys about other aspects of care. There was a complaints policy in place and there had been no recent complaints made.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to access input from other professionals. However, it was not clear that where advice was given that this was then incorporated into people’s care. Staff raised concerns that they were not able to deliver care as they wanted to due to a lack of time and did not have the oversight of people, particularly those cared for in their rooms.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People living at the home were not being supported to live a full live. There were limited opportunities for activities and meaningful interaction and people’s experience of this depended upon the unit and staff on shift.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People had care plans in place about their end of life support needs, but these were task based and generic and lacked personalised detail. Concerns were raised about staff’s ability to identify people’s declining health and there was limited oversight for people who were being cared for in bed. There was limited evidence that where people’s health was declining that their needs, such as mouth care and repositioning were being met.