Hampton Grange Nursing Home

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and regularly reviewed. This included information on their likes, dislikes, preferences, risks, communication and emotional support. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people and their support needs and whilst there was no impact we did identify this was not always reflected in people’s care plans. For example, for a person who receives specific support with continence care, their elimination care plan lacked specific instructions regarding the use of alcohol wipe to clean drainage port or specific provision for their abdomen. We raised this with the registered nurse and during our feedback to the management team. Following our feedback the person’s elimination care plan was updated to include this information.

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. One relative said, “We’ve had no care meeting lately, though we have had them in the past. I can always find someone to ask or to check in with, especially regards [family member] food and drink intake. I’m always made to feel welcome – they know who I am and where [family member] will be.” Care records showed external professionals had been involved in people’s care. For example, food and fluid was monitored for people who were at risk of malnutrition and/or dehydration. People had their nutritional needs assessed by speech and language therapists and received meals in line with recommendations made by these professionals. For people assessed as requiring a modified diet staff followed the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI), as guided to from health care professionals to ensure people can safely and effectively eat and drink. IDDSI is the classification system used to describe food and drink textures. One person said, “The food is very good.” A relative told us, “The food is good, and I’ve been offered lunch when I’ve been here.” However, one person did say, “Always the same for breakfast – scrambled eggs on toast. I’d like something different.” Another person spoke to us in relation to drinks and said, “I don’t know what it is, but it’s nice. We have all sorts of things like fruit juices.”

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. Staff shared information appropriately and worked with external healthcare professionals to ensure people’s needs were understood. This helped to ensure people received the right support in a timely manner.

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. Care plans contained information about people’s health conditions so staff could recognise any signs or symptoms which may indicate a deterioration in their condition. A relative explained since their family member had been in the home they had not suffered with a chest infection yet prior to moving into the home they were always coming down with them.

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. Records to monitor safe practice were completed. For example, monitoring people who were at risk of not eating and drinking enough or for people who were at risk of sustaining skin damage.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to make particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. When people receive care and treatment in care homes this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA. People’s capacity to consent to their care and treatment was assessed when required. Staff had received training in MCA and DoLS. Staff understood their responsibilities for ensuring people could make decisions about their care and support. They helped people to make decisions by offering choices and offering these choices in a way they understood. Where people were assessed as not being able to make a specific decision, the management team and staff team followed best interest processes.