Archived: Hampshire Court

Updated 4 August 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We undertook an unannounced focused inspection of Hampshire Court on 12 May 2015. This inspection was completed to check that improvements to meet legal requirements planned by the provider after our comprehensive inspection on 12 and 13 November 2014 had been made.

We inspected the service against two of the five questions we ask about services: Is the service safe? Is the service responsive? This is because the service was not meeting some legal requirements.

The inspection was undertaken by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed notifications received about the service. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally required to let us know about. We also spoke with local authority commissioners of the service.

During the inspection we spoke with the manager and a senior care staff member.

We looked at care records for four people, specifically the care plans and risk assessments.

Updated 4 August 2015

The inspection took place on 12 and 13 November 2014. This was an unannounced inspection. At the last inspection carried out on 3, 4, and 15 July 2014 we found that the provider was not meeting two of the regulations inspected.

At the previous inspection we found the home was failing to take proper steps to protect people from the risks associated with unsafe premises and failing to take appropriate steps to provide adequate maintenance for the proper operation of the premises. We found in relation to cleanliness and infection control that the provider was failing to take proper steps to maintain appropriate standards of cleanliness and infection control because people were not protected from the risk of infection and were not cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Following our inspection on the 3, 4 and 15 July 2014, the provider sent us an action plan telling us about the improvements they were going to make. During this inspection we found the provider had taken action to address these issues, although unforeseen additional damage to a shower room had prolonged work in this area. We took that into account when preparing this report.

Hampshire Court provided residential care for up to 52 people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people living at the home, all of them located on the ground floor. The upper floor of the home was not in use due to on-going maintenance work. The provider was in the process of making a decision to reduce the total number of registered beds available at the home, to coincide with the number useable on the ground floor. While the provider was making the decision, they had agreed with us not to take in any more people.

The home had a manager appointed in July 2014 and who was in the process of applying to be the registered manager of the home. 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’s risk assessments were not always completed accurately, which meant people were not kept as safe as they could have been. Care records were not always reviewed regularly and clear which meant people were at risk of receiving inappropriate care and treatment.

These matters were in breach of regulation 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

People were respected and cared for individually. People told us they felt safe. One person told us, “I have no worries here about safety.”

People received their medicine correctly and staff had received training to administer medicine in the correct way. Any new staff were not allowed to complete this task until assessed as competent.

We found the home to be clean, tidy and odour free and new cleaning rotas had been put into place to monitor this.

Staff understood safeguarding procedures and told us about what they would do if an incident of concern happened. From what we were told, we felt staff would have no hesitation in reporting any safeguarding issues that may arise at the home.

Staff followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions had been made where there were doubts about a person’s capacity to make decision. The manager had also made three DoLS applications to the local authority when that had been required.

Staff knew the people who lived at the home. We asked staff about behaviours that challenged the service. They were able to explain how they managed those behaviours with different strategies they had put in place.

People told us they felt there was enough staff to look after them. The manager monitored staffing levels to ensure enough trained staff were available to meet people’s needs. The manager had procedures in place to ensure any staff recruited were suitable to work within the home.

There was a training programme in place. Staff development was monitored by the manager to ensure they had up to date knowledge and any training needs were met.

The home had recently employed a new maintenance person. Part of their role was to complete regular checks on the building and maintain a suitable environment for people. We saw the manager had emergency procedures in place so that if there was any incident, staff would know what to do to protect people.

People were offered a selection of food types and told us they enjoyed what was offered. We saw homemade food being prepared. People told us they had a choice and we saw evidence of that on the day we inspected. One person told us, “It’s lovely food, just right.” The kitchen staff were dedicated to making sure people were happy with the food they made for them.

We saw people being offered support if it was required and carers did this in a way which retained the dignity of the people they were caring for. Care staff were seen to be kind, warm and considerate. They also respected the views of the people they cared for. One person told us,

“Staff are very nice, very caring and can’t do enough for you.” A relative told us, “You just need to ask, they [staff] will do anything for you.” We found a positive attitude to caring from all the staff we had contact with during our inspection.

People told us they had choice. People had chosen to decorate their bedrooms with their own personal items and staff had helped them to do this. We saw people choosing what meals and drinks they would like. One person told us, “Staff ask me how I want things done, if that is what you mean.”

People were able to participate in activities, although the manager told us this was being reviewed with the two new activity coordinators recently employed.

People, who told us they had complained, said the staff dealt with the matter effectively and to their satisfaction. People and their relatives were able to meet with the manager and staff, at various times and be able to give feedback about the home. People and relatives thought the staff in the home listened to them and helped bring about positive change.

The manager had put in place a number of systems to monitor the quality of the service provided. When issues were identified, we saw actions had been taken.