Hampton Manor

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The provider carried out appropriate pre-assessment reviews before a person moved in. This included how people wanted to be supported in regard to their religion and culture. Care and support needs were reviewed on a regular basis.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff supported people effectively, using various strategies, to make informed choices about what they wanted to eat and drink. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the quality and choice of the meals provided. A person told us, “I really do love the food and I have different things all the time.” A relative said, “[Person] is very picky with their diet so they have taken time to ask them what they like.”

Staff maintained monitoring records relating to weight management, nutrition and hydration, which were then reviewed by the management team. Fluid charts did not always contain an individualised daily target intake for the person concerned or guide staff what to do if this target was not reached. The provider reassured us this would be rectified immediately.

Staff training was up to date, in keeping with good practice and relevant to people’s individual needs. Mandatory training covered key areas such as falls prevention, dementia care and awareness of the Mental Capacity Act.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. A relative said, “Staff work well together and communicate all the time. If anything happens they inform me straight away.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported people to access healthcare professionals to manage their general health. The service made referrals to appropriate health and social care services when people’s needs changed and any recommendations were acted upon. A relative told us, “[Person’s] hearing aid was not working and they are seeing to that, the optician has seen them and they’re getting a new pair of glasses. The chiropodist has visited them. The laundry comes back clean and soft and they change the bedding every day.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People and relatives told us their experience of the care provided at Hampton Manor was positive. One person said, “Staff are very good; they always talk to me and are friendly to me.” A relative said, “[Person] loves living there.”

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The service was mostly working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were mostly in place in relation to specific decisions, such as the use of equipment to keep people safe and covert medicines administration.

Best interests’ decisions required more detailed records regarding which specific individuals had been involved in the process. Where people had Lasting Power of Attorney (LPA), records required more information about named individuals and their responsibilities. When we discussed this with the provider they agreed to rectify this.