Hill House

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People were now safe living at the service and staff were trained and knowledgeable about safeguarding. Staff supported people in line with risk assessments in all areas of their support. There were enough staff to support people safely and staff were recruited in line with legislation. Staff kept the service clean, and the environment was safe. People were now supported safely with their medicines.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. People’s needs were assessed when they started living at the service and reassessed regularly. Staff worked with health professionals to help promote good health outcomes for people and support them to live healthy lives. People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA).

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people felt well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. Staff were kind and compassionate and people told us they liked the staff team and how they were supported. Staff knew people as individuals and supported them in a timely fashion. People were supported to make choices and be independent if they chose to be.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Staff supported people in line with their preferences, likes and dislikes. People were supported to feed back about their support and information was available in formats that made sense to them. They were also supported to identify and follow their interests. Staff supported people with dignity and respect at the end of their life.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care. The management team wanted what was best for people and shared this vision with the staff team. They understood their roles and had processes and audits in place to monitor the quality of the service. The staff team enjoyed working at the service and felt well supported. There had been significant improvements at the service since our last assessment. The management team were open and honest about how there were still improvements to be made, and existing improvements would need time to embed.