Hempton Field Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 82 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider was exceptional at making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans were individualised and detailed how people wanted to be supported in line with their individual likes and dislikes. One relative said, “I have been involved, and will be, with any reviews. [Person] has been cared for 100%.”

The provider responded to people’s needs in person centred way to maximise their care and enhance their lives. For example, one person was admitted to the home following a stay in hospital and was expected to remain at the home.The person’s mobility had deteriorated significantly, and they had other health issues. Records in the home evidenced actions taken by the home. Staff created a personalised plan ‘focused on recovery, well-being, and maintaining independence’. Staff recognised how important it was to [person] to eventually return to live with their son and grandchildren, and this goal remained central to all aspects of his care and support.’ After time this person’s health and mobility significantly improved, allowing them to return to their home and family.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People received care and treatment in line with their assessed needs. Relatives said people had regular health checks and care reviews. A relative told us, “I have been involved in reviews, and I am always kept up to date with things.”

Staff worked closely with community health care providers and knew when to refer people for specialist care. They accessed support, advice and treatment for people from physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, chiropodists, and opticians.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service followed the principles of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) to identify, record, and meet the information and communication needs of people with a disability, impairment, and/or sensory loss. This ensured people were given information in a way they could understand.

People had person-centred care plans the detailed their communication needs. Information was shared with visiting health and social care professionals where necessary to ensure people could get the best out of medical and other appointments.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us they knew how to make a formal complaint if they needed to and were confident it would be taken seriously by the management. The service’s complaints policy was on display in the home. The complaints process included details of how to appeal a decision, contact details for the local government and social care ombudsman.

People told us they were listened to, and confident concerns would be dealt with. Their comments included, “I have raised the condition of my personal bathroom, it was dealt with”, “Everything is addressed immediately so there is no need to complain officially” and “I’ve not officially complained but I’d go to [registered manager].”

The provider made sure people could access the care and support they needed in a timely way. People’s care was planned in a way which worked for them, and which promoted dignity, equality, and human rights.

The provider used people’s feedback and other evidence to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care.

The environment was fully accessible to people living with a range of physical needs. Wide doorways and corridors enabled wheelchair users and people using walkers to access all areas such as the activity rooms, lounge areas, garden spaces and dining rooms.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care and support in response to this.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination and having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics. The provider recognised potential discrimination and inequality and proactively addressed barriers to improve people’s experience of the service.

People’s religious and cultural needs were discussed at their initial assessments and recorded in their care plans. Religious and cultural activities were available throughout the year. The chef told us, “I can cater for all diets, needs or cultural tastes.”

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were able to discuss their preferences about the care they wished to receive towards the end of their lives. People’s wishes were respected if they chose not to discuss this aspect of their care. One staff member told us, “Our end-of-life care is a particular strength, we work closely with families, the GP, and district nurses to ensure residents' wishes are met and they are comfortable and dignified.”

The service was extremely compassionate when providing person centred care when people experienced end of life. We saw one case study of a person. It stated ‘[Person] was treated with dignity, kindness, and respect. Staff took time to understand their wishes, preferences, routines, and what mattered most to them, ensuring their care was always personalised and meaningful. As [person’s] health deteriorated, their relative openly shared with the management team that they were struggling emotionally due to a recent personal bereavement and felt unable to be present at the time of their [person’s] passing. However, they expressed deep concern about [person] being alone during their final moments. Recognising the emotional significance of this situation, the registered manager made the compassionate decision to remain with [person] throughout the night, ensuring they were not alone and providing reassurance and comfort not only to [person], but also to the relative during an incredibly difficult time. This demonstrated the special relationship between the registered manager and the person and the home’s ethos of putting all people at the front of everything they did.

Records confirmed, following this person’s death the person’s family decided to hold the wake for this person at Hempton Field. Family, friends [of the person] and staff paid their respects and celebrated the person’s life.

Staff took time to understand people's wishes, preferences, routines, and what mattered most to them, ensuring their care was always truly personalised and meaningful.