Hilltop Court Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

There was no registered manager in post at the time of our site visit. Families commented that the management arrangements at the home changed frequently. The current home manager was committed to improving the quality and culture of the home and the provider had an improvement plan in place. However, systems for oversight were not always embedded or being used effectively.

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.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff generally spoke positively about the home manager and felt supported and valued by the management team. However, there was evidence that not all staff felt positive and supported by the provider and there was a high use of agency staff which was impacting upon the continuity of care people received.

There had been some improvements in governance processes since the last inspection. The provider had implemented audits to have oversight of the service. There was an ongoing service improvement plan in place and it was clear progress within the home was starting to be made in certain areas. However, the progress made had not been fully embedded within the home and further work was still needed. Robust systems were not in place to ensure staff were supported and trained to perform their roles effectively in essential areas. For example, oversight of agency staff needed to be improved, to ensure these staff had the skills and training needed to provide safe care and treatment to people in the home. The provider needed to ensure that agency staff had been given clear direction and expectations when working at the service, including guidance around record keeping, information about people’s needs and other information they needed to know to work effectively at the service. We found examples of statutory notifications, information about the service which providers are required to send to CQC, had not always been sent in a timely manner. For example, notifications of where people had restrictions in place which had been approved under the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards had been delayed but the manager assured us this would be addressed. The manager engaged with staff during supervision, team meetings and daily walk arounds. Staff spoke positively of the support they received from the manager. Staff members told us, “The management do listen. [Manager name] hasn’t had it easy here with certain staff. But from what I can see, they have done the best they can out of a difficult situation” and “Yes I feel supported, I feel I can talk to [managers name] freely.”

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.