You are here

We are carrying out checks at Hampton House using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 July 2015

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Hampton House on 18 and 19 November 2014.

Hampton House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 32 older men and women with 28 people living there when we visited. People living at the home had a range of support needs including help with communication, personal care, moving about and support if they became confused or anxious. Staff support was provided at the home at all times and some people required the support of staff when away from the home.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported by a caring staff team who knew them very well and treated them as individuals. For example, staff worked with each person to identify their personal goals and then helped them to achieve them. People were encouraged to make choices and to do things for themselves as far as possible. In order to achieve this, a balance was struck between keeping people safe and supporting them to take risks and develop their independence.

People had access to a range of activities which prevented social isolation and promoted an active life. Staff helped people to stay well by seeking advice from health and social care professionals as needed. People enjoyed the meals provided, which they said were of a high quality. People also benefitted from an environment that helped them to stay safe and was pleasant to live in.

Staff felt well supported and had the training they needed to provide personalised support to each person. Staff met with their line manager to discuss their development needs and action was taken when concerns were raised. Learning took place following any incidents to prevent them happening again.

People and their relatives were encouraged to provide feedback which was used to enhance the service. They felt able to raise concerns and the issues were promptly addressed. Staff understood what they needed to do if they had concerns about the way a person was being treated. Staff were prepared to challenge and address poor care to keep people safe and happy.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 July 2015

The service was safe. The risks people faced had been assessed and a balance was achieved between keeping people safe and supporting them to be as independent as possible.

People were protected from preventable harm as learning and action took place following any incidents and staff had a good understanding of safeguarding requirements.

Sufficient staff with the relevant skills, experience and character were available to keep people safe and meet their needs. People safely received the medicines they needed. The premises were well-maintained and clean.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 July 2015

The service was effective. Staff had received training about making decisions in people’s best interests when they lacked the mental capacity to do so themselves.

People’s immediate health needs were met to help them stay well. They were supported to eat a healthy diet by staff and enjoyed the food provided.

The training staff needed to support people had been assessed and provided as needed. Staff met with their line manager to receive feedback on their practice and discuss development needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 July 2015

The service was caring. People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who understood the importance of dignity. People using the service and their relatives spoke very positively about the quality of care provided.

Staff showed a passion for supporting everyone in a personalised way. People were supported to communicate by staff who knew them well. They were encouraged to make choices and to be as independent as possible. Staff were prepared to challenge and address poor care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 July 2015

The service was responsive. Staff knew people well and people’s care plans reflected their likes, dislikes and preferences. Each person was treated as an individual and was involved in developing their care plan.

People were supported to take part in a variety of activities in the home and the community.

People and relatives were confident complaints would be dealt with and they felt able to complain if they needed to. Staff monitored people’s behaviour to identify if they were unhappy.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 July 2015

The service was well-led. People spoke highly of the management team and had confidence in them. Staff sought out and followed examples of high quality care.

The quality of the service was regularly audited by staff from the home. People using the service and family members were asked for feedback and comments had been positive. Action was taken to address any shortfalls identified.

The provider had clear expectations about the way staff should support people and made sure staff were aware of these. Staff understood their responsibilities and felt able to share concerns with the registered manager.