We carried out a review of the data available to us about Hampton Grove Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Hampton Grove Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Hampton Grove Care Home is a care home without nursing, which accommodates up to 86 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 59 people living at the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People felt safe living in the service. Risks had been identified and assessed to ensure that action had been taken to keep people safe.
Staff followed good practice guidance to prevent the spread of infection and gave people their medicines safely.
Staff were recruited safely to the service with all relevant pre-employment checks completed. Staffing levels
were consistent at the service and reviewed regularly.
Accidents and incidents were reviewed, and action taken as needed.
The provider and registered manager had effective systems in place which helped ensure that staff delivered a service that met people's needs and kept them safe.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good under the previous provider (published 7 January 2020).
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to the management of medicines, infection control and staffing. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has remained the same based on the findings of this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Hampton Grove Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
We found the following examples of good practice:
Staff made sure that people were protected against the transmission of infection from visitors by scheduling visits, limiting areas that visitors could access and being available to escort visitors to the person.
Staff adapted the layout of communal areas to support people to social distance from each other.
Staff put appropriate actions into place to make sure people were admitted safely into the service.
Staff had enough personal protective equipment, such as masks, gloves and aprons, and had supported people so that they also understood the need for this.
Regular COVID-19 testing was carried out to make sure people and staff were safe.
The service was clean and staff had increased cleaning of frequently touched surfaces, such as door handles, to reduce the risk of transmission of infection.
The provider made sure staff and the manager received enough support during the pandemic and when additional staff were needed.
Additional risk assessments were completed for staff at increased risk of catching COVID-19 and actions put into place to reduce risks to them.
Avery House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 77 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 86 people. The home is divided over four floors, each of which has separate adapted facilities.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were happy with the care home and the staff that provided their care.
People felt safe living at the home because staff knew what they were doing, they had been trained, and cared for people in the way people wanted. Staff assessed and reduced risks as much as possible, and there was equipment in place to help people remain as independent as possible. There were enough staff, and the senior staff also spoke with people regularly. The provider obtained key recruitment checks before new staff started work.
People received their medicines and staff knew how these should be given. Medicine records were completed accurately and with enough detail. Staff supported people with meals and drinks. They used protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons. Staff followed advice from health care professionals and made sure they asked people’s consent before caring for them.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People liked the staff that cared for them. Staff were kind and caring, they involved people in their care and made sure people’s privacy was respected. Staff worked well together, they understood the home’s aim to deliver high quality care, which helped people to continue to live as independently as possible.
Staff kept care records up to date and included national guidance if relevant. Complaints and concerns were dealt with and resolved.
Systems to monitor how well the home was running were carried out. Concerns were followed up to make sure action was taken to rectify any issues. Changes were made where issues had occurred elsewhere, so that the risk of a similar incident occurring again was reduced. People were asked their view of the home and action was taken to change any areas they were not happy with.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (report published 30 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Staff knew how to respond to possible abuse and how to reduce risks to people. There were enough staff who had been recruited properly to make sure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were stored and administered safely.
People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles. Staff members understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received a choice of meals, which they liked, and staff supported them to eat and drink enough. They were referred to health care professionals as needed and staff followed the advice professionals gave them.
Staff were caring and kind and treated people with respect. People were listened to and were involved in their care and what they did on a day to day basis. People’s right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.
People’s personal and health care needs were met and care records guided staff in how to do this. There was a large variety of activities or events for people to do and take part in during the day, and people had enough social stimulation. Complaints were investigated and responded to and people knew who to speak with if they had concerns.
People liked living at the home and staff supported them to maintain community links. Staff worked well together and felt supported by the management team. The monitoring process looked at systems throughout the home, identified issues and staff took the appropriate action to resolve these.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Avery House is a registered care home which provides accommodation, support and non-nursing care for up to 86 people, some of whom live with dementia. There are four individual units called Windsor, Balmoral, Sandringham and Buckingham. All bedrooms have en suite facilities and there are external and internal communal areas, including dining rooms and lounges, for people and their guests to visit. Avery House is located in a residential suburb of the city of Peterborough.
A registered manager was in post at the time of this inspection. 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 the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The last inspection was carried out on 24 and 30 July 2013 where we found the provider was meeting the regulations.
This inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 20 October 2014 by three inspectors.
Avery House provided people with safe care and protected people from the risk of harm. People’s medication was looked after in a safe way and people were supported to take their medication as prescribed. People’s individual health and safety risks were assessed and these were well-managed. Satisfactory checks were completed during the recruitment of new staff so that only suitable staff worked at Avery House.
People received effective care to meet their individual health needs. They were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink. They were also supported to access a range of health care services to monitor their health and treat any health conditions that they had.
People living with dementia had their individual communication needs met so that they had become or remained settled. People’s rights in making decisions and suggestions in relation to their support and care were valued and acted on. Where people were unable to make these decisions, they were supported with this decision making process. Individual recreational and social hobbies and interests were provided to maintain and promote people’s sense of wellbeing. Staff were trained and supported to provide people with safe and appropriate support and care.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care services. We found that people’s rights were being protected as DoLS applications were in progress and were to be submitted to the authorising agencies.
People were treated well and with respect and they and their relatives were actively involved in the review of people’s individual care plans.
People received care that was responsive to their individual needs and were supported to maintain contact with their relatives and make friends. There were also community links and people were also supported to visit local amenities. Complaints made to the registered manager were acted upon to the satisfaction of the complainant.
The care home was well-led and safe for people to live, visit and work. Staff enjoyed their work and were supported and managed to look after people in a caring and safe way. People and relatives, staff and managers made suggestions at meetings and actions were taken as a result. Other quality monitoring procedures were in place and effective action had been taken where identified improvements were needed.
People received the care and support they required to improve their health and well-being. Care records were written in detail and provided clear guidance to staff members.
Medicines were stored appropriately and records were maintained to show all storage areas were kept at the correct temperature. Administration records were kept and people received their medicines in a safe way.
Information showed there were enough care staff members available. One person using the service said there were enough staff available to meet their needs, but that sometimes it could be difficult to attract their attention.
Systems were in place to regularly check and monitor the way the service was run.
People did not always receive the care and support they required to improve their health and well-being. Assessments were completed and care records were written in enough detail to provide clear guidance to staff members. Some people had access to the advice and treatment of health care professionals, although we found that there was inadequate access to the community dietician.
People were provided with a choice of meals and staff members assisted them appropriately with eating and drinking if this was required.
People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.
Appropriate actions had been taken to make sure that people were safe from infection or to resolve infection prevention and control issues when they were identified.
Medicines were stored appropriately and records were maintained to show all storage areas were kept at the correct temperature. Administration records were kept and people received their medicines in a safe way.
Staff rotas and training information showed there were enough staff members and that training had been kept up to date. People using the service said there were enough staff available to meet their needs.
People told us that they thought the meals were good. They said there was always a choice but were less clear on what to do if they did not like any of the choices.
The people with whom we spoke said that they felt safe in the home and staff treated them well. We were also told that their rooms were cleaned regularly.
One person told us they administered their own medication and kept it locked in a drawer in their room. Others told us they did not want to be responsible for their medication, commenting, "I may lose it or forget to take it" or " I don't want to".
People said that they thought the staff did a wonderful job, with one person stating, "It's not something I'd want to do." Another person said, "They must be kind people to do such a job."