You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The inspection took place on 30 August and 5 September 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. The service was last inspected in November 2014. At that inspection, the service received an overall ‘Good’ rating and at this inspection the service remained ‘Good’ overall.

Hampton House is owned by Curtis Homes Limited. It is situated in the town of Cheltenham and offers accommodation for up to 32 older people. Some of the people living at Hampton House may suffer from dementia. There were 24 people living at Hampton House at the time of the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at Hampton House who had been working at the home since 1999. 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 received care which ensured their safety. Staff supported people in a manner which minimised risk to people. Where people had suffered an accident or injury, the service had worked with relevant health professionals to ensure they received appropriate care and treatment. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure safe care and treatment to support people. People were kept safe by staff who had a good awareness of safeguarding policies and procedures and felt confident to raise any issues or concerns with the management team. The registered manager had carried out the relevant checks to ensure they employed suitable people at Hampton House. There were regular health and safety checks of the property to ensure it was safe for the people living at Hampton House.

People were receiving effective care and support. Staff had received appropriate training for their role. The registered manager had implemented a system to allow them to track staff training and ensure it was up to date. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals with the registered manager or deputy manager. Where required, the service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People had sufficient to eat and drink. Care staff and kitchen staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and worked hard to meet individual needs. The environment had been adapted to meet the needs of people living at the home. People were supported to personalise their living spaces.

The service was caring. People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff at the home. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of respect and dignity and were observed providing care which maintained peoples dignity. People had end of life care plans which reflected their needs and preferences.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. People received care which was person centred and were supported by staff who provided care which was personalised for each person. Staff on all shifts made recordings of the care provided to people. People were supported to engage in a range of activities based on their preferences and interests . There was a complaints procedure in place and where a complaint had been made, there was evidence this had been dealt with appropriately.

The service was well-led. The registered manger carried out regular quality assurance checks and audits to monitor the quality of the service provided to people. Appropriate action had been taken to address concerns identified in the audits. Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. The registered manager and staff were aware of the vision and values of the service and worked hard to provide a service which was person centred for each individual.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was safe.

Risk assessments were present in people’s care files and people were supported by staff in a manner where risks had been minimised.

Where people had suffered an accident or injury, the service had worked with relevant health professionals to ensure they received appropriate care and treatment.

There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure safe care and treatment to support people.

People were kept safe by staff who had a good awareness of safeguarding policies and procedures and felt confident to raise any issues or concerns with the management team.

The registered manager had carried out the relevant checks to ensure they employed suitable people at Hampton House.

There were regular health and safety checks of the property to ensure it was safe for the people living at Hampton House.

Effective

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

People were receiving effective care and support.

Staff had received appropriate training for their role. The registered manager had implemented a system to allow them to track staff training and ensure it was up to date.

Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals with the registered manager or deputy manager.

Where required, the service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People had sufficient to eat and drink. Care staff and kitchen staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and worked hard to meet individual needs.

The environment had been adapted to meet the needs of people living at the home.

People were supported to personalise their living spaces.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was caring.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff at the home.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of respect and dignity and provided care which maintained people’s dignity.

People had end of life care plans which reflected their needs and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People received care which was person centred and were supported by staff who provided care which was personalised for each person.

Staff on all shifts made recordings of the care provided to people.

People were supported to engage in a range of activities based on their preferences and interests.

There was a complaints procedure in place and where a complaint had been made, there was evidence this had been dealt with appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 30 November 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manger carried out regular quality assurance checks and audits to monitor the quality of the service provided to people. Appropriate action had been taken to address concerns identified in the audits.

Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager.

The registered manager and staff were aware of the vision and values of the service and worked hard to provide a service which was person centred for each individual.