Hampstead Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been ratedgood.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Conversations with staff demonstrated a clear shared desire and drive to provide a safe and comfortable environment for people. The importance of promoting individuality and independence in this to ensure inclusion was noted.

Staff we spoke to told us they felt the working environment was a positive one with a culture that encouraged open dialogue. They spoke of an open door policy with management and a visible presence of senior staff

Ideas and feedback were actively sought across the staffing team. Staff told us they felt their input was listened to and important in shaping the service.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders had experience of working and managing both clinical and care backgrounds. Staff told us they felt this enabled leaders to fully support them through understanding of the challenges in their roles. Some staff spoke highly of their manager, consistently praising their supportive leadership, clear communication, and genuine commitment to both staff well-being and the quality of care that people received.

Leaders had a visible presence in the home and staff told us they felt senior staff were approachable and understanding of any issues raised.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt able to speak up and that their concerns would be listened to and escalated if necessary.

Staff were familiar with the service’s policy on whistleblowing and knew how to escalate their concerns as part of the speak up process, should they feel action taken was not sufficient to address their concerns. Staff also told us that supervisors and managers had open door policies and were always welcoming of feedback and keen to improve.

In addition to responding positively when feedback was actively sought, they felt able to raise ideas and concerns independently of these official channels and were confident their thoughts were valued and listened to.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

All staff were encouraged to develop and progress their careers if that was their wish. They were offered support from managers and the wider company to do so. Staff told us they felt part of an inclusive workforce and their skills were valued whatever post they held.

Staff told us they felt their diversity was celebrated. They were offered the opportunity to give a presentation to people about their individual backgrounds, culture and country they had grown up in. Staff who had done this told us they embraced the opportunity to showcase their origins. Both staff and people living at the home enjoyed these sessions, and they helped foster a culture of curiosity, openness and value of the diverse backgrounds of staff.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had a number of checks and audits to monitor, assess and improve the quality of the service and the safety of people. However, the medicines checks and audits were not robust or effective enough because these had not identified the concerns and shortfalls we found in relation to the management of medicines, or if the shortfalls had been identified, no action had been taken by the time of our assessment to put these right.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

Hampstead Court Care Home had many community ties and welcomed visitors to improve the level of engagement and stimulation for people who lived there. This included maintaining links with local schools, so people could benefit from regular visits by students and engage in conversation with them, learn from each other and develop companionship.

The service collaborated well with other professionals and stakeholders. London Borough of Camden’s commissioning team made regular visits to the home, to review the quality of the service. The provider welcomed these visits and, responded positively when they received feedback about the outcomes of the visits.. Relevant information was also shared with healthcare teams, relatives and CQC in a timely manner and as required.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

We saw evidence of clear learning from accidents/incidents and complaints. For example, changes were made to ensure hospital discharge information was added promptly following a previous incident involving changes to medication routine. These were used as opportunities to improve care and support with clear tracking of changes made and review of these to ensure they had the desired impact.

The provider was keen to understand and improve the quality of life for people living in care homes. They were involved in a piece of research with an external organisation, aimed at tackling loneliness in residential homes.