You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 September 2017

This inspection took place on 15 August 2017 and was unannounced. The home was previously inspected during February 2016 and was found to require improvement at that time, with breaches of regulations in relation to the management and reporting of safeguarding incidents. During this inspection, we checked to see whether improvements had been made. Improvements were evident and we identified no breaches of regulations during this inspection.

Hampton House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 12 people with learning disabilities and other complex health needs. The home is a two storey, purpose-built building with a secure garden. There are private bedrooms with en-suite facilities, a sensory/cinema room, two communal bathrooms, two communal lounges and 2 communal kitchen/dining rooms. The home has a lift and is accessible for people who use a wheelchair. There were 12 people living at the home at the time of this inspection.

The home had a permanent manager in post, who had applied to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage Hampton House on 1 August 2017. Their application to become registered manager was being considered by CQC 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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered provider had a safeguarding policy in place and the staff we spoke with understood the signs to look for which may indicate potential abuse. Staff were clear about who they would report safeguarding concerns to.

Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to keep people safe and staff were recruited safely.

Risks had been assessed, such as those relating to falls, managing medicines and leisure activities. Measures had been introduced to reduce risks whilst enabling people to retain their independence.

Regular building and equipment safety checks took place. Plans and evacuation equipment were in place to safely evacuate people in the case of emergencies.

Medicines were managed, stored and administered effectively and safely. Where people were assessed as being able to administer aspects of their own medicines, this was done in a safe way.

Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisal. Staff told us they felt supported.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Decision specific mental capacity assessments had been completed for people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions, as required by the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received appropriate support in order to have their nutrition and hydration needs met. Adapted equipment was used to enable people to remain independent. Mealtimes were a pleasant experience and people enjoyed the food. The home had been recognised for good standards of food hygiene and for ensuring healthy food options.

All of our observations indicated staff treated people with kindness and compassion. People and relatives told us staff were caring. There was a pleasant atmosphere in the home.

Some records containing personal information were kept in communal areas and were not stored in the locked cupboards intended for their storage. Once we highlighted this, the deputy manager addressed staff immediately and assured us this would be monitored.

Care plans contained person centred information, including people’s personal interests, likes and dislikes. Staff were aware of people’s needs and preferences and care was provided in line with care plans. Staff were particularly

Inspection areas



Updated 14 September 2017

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe and relatives agreed.

Risks to people were assessed and measures were in place to reduce risks.

Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to help keep people safe.

Medicines were managed and administered safely.



Updated 14 September 2017

The service was effective.

The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were applied.

Staff had received induction and ongoing training and supervision.

People received support to access health care services and to meet their nutrition and hydration needs.



Updated 14 September 2017

The service was caring.

People and relatives spoke highly of staff and told us staff were caring.

Staff were skilled at communicating with people and we observed positive interactions between staff and people who lived at the home.

People�s diversity was respected and people received support in order to practise their religion and attend worship.



Updated 14 September 2017

The service was responsive.

Personalised care plans reflected individual choice and need. Staff were knowledgeable about people�s needs.

People engaged in meaningful activities which were important to them.

Information was provided to people on how to complain and this was made available in an appropriate format.



Updated 14 September 2017

The service was well-led.

Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and they thought the service was well-led.

Regular meetings had been held with people who lived at the home and with staff.

The manager, deputy manager and staff were receptive to the inspection and keen to continue to improve the quality of care provided at Hampton House. Audits and quality assurance checks regularly took place to help drive improvements at the home.

The registered provider had failed to display their most recent ratings on their website. The registered provider advised this was a technical error and this was rectified immediately.