You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Hampden House. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 25 November 2017

We inspected Hampden House on 9 and 12 October 2017. The inspection was unannounced on the first day and we told the provider we would be visiting on the second day.

At the last inspection in August 2016 we found the provider had breached three regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to the safe delivery of care and treatment, staffing levels and governance of the service. An action plan was submitted following the inspection which detailed measures the provider intended to take to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of any regulations.

Hampden house is a purpose built property. The service provides care for up to 66 older people and is accommodation for people who require personal care and/ or nursing care. There are three nursing units and three residential units within the service. On the first day of our inspection 50 people were living at Hampden house.

A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were able to tell us about different types of abuse and were aware of action they should take if abuse was suspected. Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety.

Risks to people’s safety had been assessed by staff and recorded in people’s care plans. This enabled staff to have the guidance they needed to help people to remain safe. Further development of the tools used to assess risk in areas such as falls and behaviours that challenged the service were being implemented. There was a system to ensure that where accidents had occurred lessons were learnt and care plans or risk assessments were reviewed. We found this system was not always completed. Following the inspection the registered manager advised us the process was now being implemented.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management team and we saw evidence they had received one to one supervision meetings, appraisals and group meetings in the past year. The level of training staff had received had improved since the last inspection and the registered manager was ensuring staff completed refresher training.

We found there was enough staff to meet people’s needs. Permanent staff had been recruited following safe recruitment procedures and the registered manager was working with the agency who supplied agency workers to provide robust information about those workers who attended. The management team monitored staff response times when people pressed their call bells for assistance and investigated any response times which were not acceptable.

Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions. Where staff had made decisions in people’s ‘Best Interests’ they had not formally recorded these. A new format of paperwork was introduced following the inspection to ensure this was completed.

Appropriate systems were in place for the management of medicines so people received their medicines safely.

There were positive interactions between people and staff. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff showed they knew people very well and could anticipate their needs. People told us they were happy and felt very well cared for. Care plans contained information about people’s likes, dislikes and preferences to ensure people received support how they wanted.

We saw people were provided with a choice of healthy food and drinks which helped to ensure their nutritional needs were met. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services.

People accessed a wide variety of meaningful activities which they chose and influenced. People enjoyed spending time with each other and alone. Staff encouraged people to maintain links with their relatives and friends. People were aware of how to raise concerns if they felt they wanted to complain. Complaints which had been received had been dealt with appropriately.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We also saw the views of the people who used the service were regularly sought and used to make changes. A culture of continuous improvement was evident.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 25 November 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

Where accidents had occurred a full review of the control measures to prevent reoccurrence did not always happen. The registered manager implemented changes to improve this immediately.

Staff we spoke with could explain indicators of abuse and the action they would take to ensure people�s safety was maintained.

Records showed recruitment checks were carried out to help ensure suitable staff were recruited to work with people who used the service. Records relating to agency workers needed to be more robust.

There were arrangements in place to ensure people received medication in a safe way.



Updated 25 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received supervision and support from the registered manager. Staff had received more training since our last inspection. A plan was in place to ensure all training was up to date.

Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) by ensuring people had their choices respected. Where they made decisions in people�s �Best Interests� better recording was needed to evidence those decisions. A new document for this was introduced following the inspection.

People were supported to make choices in relation to their food and drink. Food looked appetising and fresh. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services.



Updated 25 November 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring staff who respected their privacy and dignity.

Staff were able to describe the likes, dislikes and preferences of people who used the service and care and support was individualised to meet people�s needs.

Where people required support at the end of their life this was delivered with dignity and compassion.



Updated 25 November 2017

The service was responsive.

People who used the service and relatives were involved in decisions about their care and support needs.

People had opportunities to take part in activities of their choice inside and outside the service. People were supported and encouraged with their hobbies and interests.

People and their families knew how to raise concerns if they wished to make a complaint. We saw complaints which had been received had been dealt with appropriately.



Updated 25 November 2017

The service was well led.

The service had a registered manager who understood the responsibilities of their role. People, their relatives and staff all told us the registered manager was approachable and had worked hard to implement changes since the last inspection.

People were regularly asked for their views and their suggestions were acted upon.

Quality assurance systems were in place to ensure the quality of care was maintained.