Hempton Field Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and staff were encouraged and supported to raise concerns, they felt confident they would be treated with compassion and understanding.

Staff told us they were updated about incidents and changes. Incidents and accidents were discussed in handovers, meetings and group supervisions. One staff member told us, “I know my residents [people] so if I see any changes in them, I share this with senior staff and managers.” One relative commented, “They [staff] are competent, very much so.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The home worked with a number of professionals to ensure continuity of care within the home. The home had regular visits from the GP and made appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals.

Staff knew people and their risks well and told us how they worked with professionals to keep people safe. One staff member commented, “We have daily meetings where we are updated on people’s conditions. Important and so useful.”

One person told us how their mobility had improved since coming to the home. They said, “The only reason I have a frame is that I need it to feel secure. I’ve just this last week started walking to the dining room.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People using the service and their relatives told us they felt safe and were happy with their care. We were told, “They treat me well, I feel entirely safe, totally safe”, “I think so [safe], things have improved immensely and I think the staff are lovely” and “Oh yes, I feel very safe.”

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to report concerns and records confirmed the registered manager reported and investigated any concerns and worked with local authority safeguarding teams. One staff member said, “I would report it immediately following the safeguarding procedure, ensure the resident [person] is safe, and escalate my concerns to management without delay.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

A risk management system was in place, and risk assessments were held in care plans. These provided staff with guidance on how to manage the risk. For example, one person was on anti-coagulant medicine which could cause unexplained bruising or excessive bleeding if the person is injured. Staff were guided to report any issues or injuries immediately to the nurse and contact the GP. Staff we spoke with were aware of this guidance.

Relatives we spoke with told us they were aware of people’s risks and felt they were managed appropriately. Their comments included, “They [staff] are very aware [of risks]. He’s [person] had every care he’s needed over the past 2 months”, “They [staff] seem to be aware, they’re always on the cautious side of things” and “They [staff] are very accommodating about her [person’s] needs and it is done with such grace, they never give the impression that she’s being an inconvenience.”

Where appropriate, mental capacity assessments were in place to safeguard people’s rights in relation to decisions about any risks.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The home had fire safety equipment to meet standards, and staff had completed the relevant fire training. Fire drills and alarm tests were conducted. Equipment and appliances were regularly serviced and checked to ensure it was serviceable and safe to use.

The home was clean and free from malodours, toilets and bathrooms were clean and regularly checked and people’s rooms were clean and tidy. The home had recently been refurbished and presented a bright and welcoming environment with a calming atmosphere.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

One staff member told us, “We have enough staff here to support our residents [people] safely.” The registered manager confirmed the home was fully staffed.,

Most people, and their relatives told us there were enough staff. Their comments included, “I think they have enough staff, I haven’t seen people having to wait for a while”, “At times I don’t think they have enough [staff]. When I press the bell, sometimes they come immediately and other times it’s a long time” and “Sometimes they are [enough] but sometimes there are too many [staff].”

Throughout the inspection, we observed staff responded to people promptly and had time to interact with people whilst supporting them. The registered manager monitored call bell response time and investigated where recorded times were longer than expected. For example, one investigation led to an extra staff member being allocated to a particularly busy shift.

The provider had robust recruitment systems in place to ensure people were supported by well trained, experienced staff. Background checks were conducted to ensure staff were safe to work with vulnerable people.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) during personal care. Staff understood the need to wear PPE and how to manage the risk of infection. Infection control policies were in place and up to date.

Cleaning schedules were in place, and people’s rooms were maintained to a high standard by dedicated housekeeping staff.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicine as prescribed. Staff had been trained to administer medicines, their competency to do so was regularly checked. Records confirmed any medicine errors were reported and investigated. One staff member told us, “I am regularly checked, once a year, I’m sure.”

Medicine records were accurate and up to date and stock balances were correct. Medicines that required extra security were held securely and managed appropriately.

People’s medicines were regularly reviewed by the GP and regular audits monitored medicines to help the home manage medicines efficiently.