Hampton Manor

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learned to continually identify and embed good practice. Accidents and incidents were investigated and analysed, with the findings used to make changes to prevent situations from happening again. This included ensuring moving and handling equipment was stored appropriately to prevent accidents.

The provider did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They did not always manage or monitor people’s safety. They did not always make sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. CCTV was used in communal areas but there was no evidence people, visitors or staff had been consulted about this before it was used. Adequate signage was not in place to advise people, visitors or staff that CCTV was in operation in public areas inside the service. The management team took immediate action to rectify the issues we had found.

Staff had assessed people’s needs before and after they moved to Hampton Manor. This information was used to determine people’s preferences and to develop care plans. A relative told us,“[Person] has a care planand I was involved in putting it together and we review it as necessary.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Safeguarding concerns were reported and investigated appropriately. Staff had completed safeguarding training, knew how to identify and report potential issues and felt confident doing so. People and relatives felt the home was safe. A relative said, “Yes, [person] is 100% safe, they tell me every day. They love living there.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were in place for people where appropriate.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Individual and environmental risks had been identified and managed. Care plans outlined how best to mitigate each risk and guide staff to support people to remain safe. These were regularly reviewed to ensure the information remained accurate and complete. Staff supported people to take positive risks where appropriate. A relative said, “[Person] is very safe there. They used to have falls, but they have not had any since they’ve been there.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.Minor improvements were needed in fire drill records and more fire marshals were needed. The provider assured us this would be rectified. The Fire and Rescue Service had previously identified minor deficiencies, which the provider had actioned promptly. Safety checks of the premises and equipment were completed regularly. Procedures were in place for emergency situations and these were reviewed and updated regularly.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff were mostly recruited in a safe way. However, the recording of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks regarding barred list status were not consistently robust. The DBS carry out checks on criminal records and barred list status on individuals who intend to work with children and vulnerable adults. These checks help employers make safer recruiting decisions and prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults. Where required, risk assessments in relation to DBS check were not always in place. The provider rectified this immediately.

Checks and induction records relating to agency staff were not always consistently documented. The provider assured us this would be improved.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff members confirmed they had opportunities for training and development and they felt much more supported than previously.

The provider determined staffing levels in line with people’s individual support needs. People and relatives felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Call bells were responded to promptly and appropriately. A relative said, “There are more regular staff now, they used to have a lot of agency staff about six months ago. There are enough staff and there has been a significant improvement.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff followed safe infection prevention and control practices and used personal protective equipment (PPE) to help prevent the spread of infections. People confirmed these practices were followed consistently.Staff had completed infection prevention and control training.A relative said, “The home is clean and tidy. The housekeeping staff and laundry staff are exceptionally good."

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff did not always involve people in planning.

Some people were prescribed medicines to be taken on a ‘when required’ basis or with a variable dose. Information for how these medicines should be administered had been updated to include person-centred information, but others needed further person-centred detail. Where monitoring was needed to see how effective the ‘when required’ medicines had been, this was not always clearly recorded. Some prescribed items did not have an opening date on them, despite labels being readily available to for this purpose.

Guidance was available for prescribed creams care staff applied as part of personal care. However, records were not fully completed, and clearer guidance was needed for some people. The provider had already began taking action to address this.