Hampton Grange Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement.

At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

At our last comprehensive inspection in February 2019 the provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care. At this inspection the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs. Staff knew what people liked, their preferences and how best to meet these. The management team had recognised staff did not always consider what information to detail in care plans and had developed 15-20 prompt tools to support staff. For example, for diabetes, hypertension, skin integrity and end of life wishes. These prompts enabled staff to know what to include within a particular individuals care plan. Care plans we viewed were personalised and contained detailed information for staff to follow. Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed to make sure these continued to meet people’s current needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.One relative said, “[Person’s name] came here from Leominster Hospital. There is a plan in place to stay here. It’s a lovely room, and everything is sorted. They are brilliant here.” Another relative said, “[Person] was fast tracked here from hospital. We weren’t informed about the process, and I didn’t receive information. This is no reflection on the home. The renewal after 3 months has been poor. Funding has been removed, and the home has reapplied for CHC funding. They have been really supportive.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. There was an understanding of the Accessible Information Standards (AIS), and people’s communication was assessed and documented in their care plans to guide staff. Staff knew people well and knew how to communicate with them. However, we identified areas where accessibility could be improved. For example, the food menus displayed on the tables were small and could be hard to read and the picture menu on the wall did not state what the food items were which could be confusing and hard to identify for people to enable them to make an informed menu choice. We discussed this with the management team who addressed this promptly. Information was shared with people. For example, a visual pictorial weekly activities guide was displayed, and people had access to ‘The Rotherwood Times’ newspaper which detailed news from the provider’s homes such as staffing updates, celebrations and activities such as pictures of people living at Hampton Grange enjoying potting plants and gardening.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Resident’s and relative’s meetings were held where actions from the previous meeting, staffing updates, meals / mealtime experience and activities were discussed. People were also given the opportunity to discuss any other updates or matters. Staff supervisions and staff meetings were held. Staff spoken with told us during those meetings they could share any ideas, suggestions or concerns and said they felt listened to. We viewed meeting minutes which provided updates; for example, menu changes based on feedbackand preferences from residents. Staff requests were also actioned such as, PCS handsets and, Wi-Fi boosters.There was the opportunity for anyone to discuss any other business. Feedback was also sought from people using the service, families, staff and external professionals in the form of an annual survey. The information was analysed and informed quality improvement plans and operational decision making. A summary of the outcomes was produced in a "You Said, We Did" format. This was displayed in the reception area of the home to ensure transparency and to show people using the service, families, staff, and visitors how their feedback had led to meaningful change. In addition, a digital reception system was in place enabling visitors to leave feedback at the end of each visit. If there was any indication the visitor was unhappy with their experience, an automatic email alert is sent in real time to both the home manager and the regional manager. This allows them to address any concerns they may receive immediately. The management team also actively monitored and responded to online feedback received. A relative said, “I know how to make a complaint if needed to and would feel comfortable doing so.” We saw compliments in the form of thank you cards from relatives to the staff team for the ‘love’ and ‘care’ they had provided to their loved ones. One thank you card also commented on the kindness also shown to them as the relative as well as their loved one.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff ensured people had access to services and equipment they required to meet their needs. For example, hoist for transfers. A relative told us their family member required 2 staff to assist in moving with a hoist and said, “Staff knew what they were doing.” People had access to call bells to request assistance from staff. However, one relative said, “The nurse call buzzer was at times out of reach from their relative.” We shared this with the manager who assured us they would investigate this and ensure the call bell was always in reach for the person to use. Where people were unable to call for assistance staff regularly checked them to ensure they were happy and safe. Staff knew people well and knew which external healthcare professionals to contact in an emergency. People’s care records provided staff with an overview of their needs and any barriers they might experience in receiving care, support and treatment. For example, mobility and accessibility or communication barriers.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, the provider is awaiting a quote for a dining table to accommodate a mobility aid. This will enable a person to be able to sit at a table with other people as opposed to sitting alone or at a table where the height is not suitable for others. Staff completed training in equality and diversity to understand and reduce the inequalities or prejudices which affected outcomes for people. The provider had equality, diversity and human rights policies in place to protect people and staff against discrimination.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s choices and what mattered to them was detailed in care plans. The manager told us they worked alongside St Michaels hospice to support people at this stage of their lives. They provided support and additional training if required.