What life is like for people using this service:

People told us that they were happy and contented living at Hilton Brook House. People were respected and given choice and control over their lives. People were encouraged to live as independently as possible.

People were protected from the risk of harm and risks were managed by staff who knew people well. People had their needs assessed and planned for and staff used these records to help guide them to care for people.

The registered manager was visible and approachable. People and staff told us that they believed the service was well-led by a management team who were pro-active in trying to continually improve the care and support that people received.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

Good (The last report was published on 21 March 2016).

About the service:

Hilton Brook House is a care home that provides accommodation with personal care for up to 31 older people some of who may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people using the service. The home is set out over two floors. The ground floor comprised of three communal and dining areas.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the date and the rating of the previous inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

This inspection took place on 20 and 21 January 2016 and was unannounced.

Hilton Brook House is a care home that provides residential care to a maximum of 31 older people. At this inspection Hilton Brook House were providing services for 25 people some of whom were living with dementia.

At this inspection there was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported by enough staff to ensure to meet their needs in a way they wanted. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm or potential abuse. Staff had received training and knew what to do if they suspected abuse.

Staff were supported by the management team and received training to help them perform their role. Staff took part in daily meetings ensure the management team were aware of any day to day issues.

People were cared for by staff who were kind, compassionate and used humour appropriately with people. Staff had good relationships with the people they supported. People felt listened to and respected. People were encouraged to make their own choices and decisions about their care and support. People felt in control of their care and staff made sure information was given in a way people understood. People had access to health care in order to maintain well-being. People, relatives and staff felt their views and opinions were listened to and respected by the management team. People and relatives knew how to make a complaint if they needed to and were provided with information about the home and provider.

People were supported to maintain relationships with their families and friends if they desired to. Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence and people were involved in activities which they found enjoyable and stimulating. People were involved in the planned expansion of services by the provider and believed their suggestions were valued.

People had a choice of what to eat and enjoyed the food offered. Staff knew the personal likes and dislikes of people and helped promote their wishes. People’s individualised beliefs were respected by staff and recorded as part of planning for the future.

People knew who the management team were. The provider completed regular quality checks to ensure that good standards of care were maintained. People’s feedback was sought on a regular basis and any areas or improvements identified were acted upon.