Hillcrest Residential Home

The assessment took place between 3 July 2025 and 29 July 2025. We visited the service on 3 July 2025 and 9 July 2025, and the medicines inspector visited on 29 July 2025.

Medication was not always managed as required. Some aspects were managed well, such as stock levels and completion of ‘date opened’ labels. However, other areas required action, such as storage of creams and recording of some medication.

People’s care plans had some detail regarding people’s preferences and staff seemed to know people well. However, we found some areas of record keeping required improvement in relation to risk assessments and care plans. Regarding behaviour monitoring and strategies staff should implement when supporting people. There were some detailed audit records, such as care records, health and safety and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC). However, there was a lack of detailed analysis following some audits. For example, lessons learnt following safeguarding concerns and action taken when issues had been highlighted. This affected the provider’s ability to correctly assess, monitor, and improve the quality and safety of care. The deputy manager was responsive in taking action to address the concerns we identified. They described plans to ensure medication, and the environment were safer for people how they intended to improve their auditing systems.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and legal authorisations had been obtained via Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, where this was deemed necessary to ensure their safety.

The provider did not always maintain the safety of the environment through regular servicing and maintenance of safety systems and equipment. Fire exits were blocked by equipment. This was immediately discussed and appropriate action taken. Some redecoration had recently been undertaken within the environment, although further improvements were required. The home was mostly clean and hygienic; however, we did see some evidence of poor housekeeping on our first assessment visit. PPE was in place and available for staff as and when they required it.

We received mixed feedback from staff regarding the running of the service, with many staff members not feeling listened to and supported in their role. There were enough care staff although staff felt that an activity co-ordinator and dedicated laundry person would support them to do their job fully. There was very little evidence of meaningful activity taking place during the inspection. People were supported by a staff team who were generally kind and caring, although on one occasion we heard staff spoke to a person in an unprofessional way. We discussed this with the deputy manager and action was taken.