Hilltop Lodge

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans were person-centred and included information relating to their preferences. Where possible people and their relatives were included in the creation and review of care plans. Processes were in place to ensure that updates to people’s needs were recorded promptly, and staff confirmed they knew how to find these updates to ensure care continued to be delivered safely and in line with people’s preferences.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff understood the needs of the people they supported and how to contact health and social care professionals for support and advice when needed. Professionals told us the service worked well with them. A professional told us, “Information we provide to the service is efficiently shared among the staff team which ensures the continuity of care for people they support.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was displayed around the care environment in a range of different formats including large print and pictures. Relatives told us that they received information both in written and verbal format prior to admission into the service and had the opportunity to tour the service and ask questions.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Policies and processes were in place to manage complaints and feedback about the service. People and their relatives told us they knew who to speak to if they had concerns and were asked for their feedback about the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The service was accessible with lift access between floors. Appropriate equipment was provided for people with mobility needs to ensure they could make use of all areas of the building.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Peoples care plans were personalised to them, and staff knew the people they supported well. Staff undertook mandatory equality and diversity training. The service gave people the opportunity to take part in a monthly service from the local church should they wish to, and managers told us this was well received by people.

People were 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. Care plans included information about peoples end of life wishes if they chose to share these. Where people or their relatives did not wish to discuss this, their wishes were respected.