We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Hamptons on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Hamptons, you can give feedback on this service.
Hampton House is a care home providing accommodation to persons who require nursing or personal care, for up to 37 people. The service provides support to older people. At the time of our inspection there were 32 people using the service. People are accommodated in one adapted building, with a large communal room and access to a secure garden. Each person had a bathroom which contained en-suite facilities.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People told us they felt safe living at Hampton House. They told us staff knew them well and understood their needs. People were involved in planning and managing their care. Staff worked with people to promote their independence and supported them to manage their own medicines were appropriate.
People enjoyed an active and engaging life at Hampton House. They enjoyed a range of activities and events which were tailored to their needs and preferences.
People were supported by a stable staffing and management team who understood and respected people’s needs. One person told us, “I feel like staff know us. Some of the staff have been here years.” A relative told us, “Staff know people so well, they are so good at meeting the minor needs. They do go the extra mile to ensure [relative] is happy and contented.” The home did not use agency staff. Staff told us they had the skills, time and support they needed to meet people’s needs.
Incidents and accidents were reviewed to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. The management reviewed where accidents occurred to identify any potential trends. Staff were supported to reflect on incidents and medicine errors to enable them to make improvements.
The provider had infection control procedures in place to protect people and prevent the spread of infection. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) in accordance with government guidance. People’s friends and family were able to visit the home with no restrictions.
People living at Hampton House were able to make their own decisions. At the time of our inspection, no one was living under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
The registered manager and deputy manager operated effective systems to monitor the quality of care they provided people living at Hampton House. Staff carried out audits and the registered manager and deputy manager took appropriate action when improvements were needed.
Staff were encouraged to share their ideas and thoughts and were rewarded if an idea was implemented into practice at Hampton House.
People, their relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the service. They felt that Hampton House was well led and praised the communication they received from the management team. Healthcare professionals spoke positively of Hampton House and how the service met people’s needs.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was Good (published 30 November 2017). At this inspection the rating has remained the same.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service and the length of time since the last inspection. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe, responsive and well-led only. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Hampton House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Hampton House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care to 37 older people and people living with a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection 35 people were receiving support at the service.
The home had a large communal lounge and dining room for people to enjoy, as well as a garden area and areas where people could sit and relax.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The provider (who is also the registered manager) and manager had set up a visiting ‘pod’ in accordance with recognised safe visiting guidance. Additionally, alternative ways, including the use of technology, had supported people’s ability to remain in contact with their relatives. At the time of our visit, visiting had been suspended, which had been communicated with people and their relatives.
¿ Admission to the home was completed in line with COVID-19 guidance. People were only admitted following a negative COVID-19 test result and supported to self-isolate for up to 14 days following admission to reduce the risk of introducing infection into the home.
¿ People’s health and wellbeing was monitored. People were observed for symptoms of COVID-19 and other potential infections. Healthcare professionals had continued to provide clinical support to people when this was required. This included assisting people with COVID-19 vaccinations.
¿ Action had been taken to reduce the risk of infection spreading which had included the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff had received training and support in relation to infection control and COVID-19. The managers observed staff practice ensuring they were following the correct use of PPE.
¿ The registered manager and provider had clear plans in relation to the isolation of people affected by COVID-19 and the cohorting of staff to reduce the spread of infection.
¿ People and staff were tested in line with national guidance for care homes.
¿ As part of full infection control measures, laundry and waste arrangements had been correctly implemented to reduce the spread of infection. The home had colour coordinated linen and a laundry room on each floor, which reducing the movement of laundry around the home (and the potential for cross infection).
¿ Cleaning schedules had been enhanced and were followed by care and maintenance staff. This included the additional cleaning of frequently touched surfaces to reduce the risk of infection spreading. Care staff carried out laundry and cleaning tasks. The registered manager explained this promoted staff knowledge and enabled them to maintain the cleanliness of the service.
¿ People told us that the home was clean and that staff wore PPE as required. While people discussed that they missed the frequent physical contact with family, they were happy in the home and enjoyed the company of staff.
¿ The provider’s policy for managing COVID-19 and related infection prevention and control procedures had been reviewed and kept up to date. COVID-19 guidance was also kept up to date for staff reference.
¿ People were being supported with activities and engagements which met their wellbeing needs, in a safe manner. The home had a hairdresser and a chiropodist who solely worked at Hampton House, they had been supported to continue delivering a service at the home in accordance with COVID-19 guidance.
Hampton House is owned by Curtis Homes Limited. It is situated in the town of Cheltenham and offers accommodation for up to 32 older people. Some of the people living at Hampton House may suffer from dementia. There were 24 people living at Hampton House at the time of the inspection.
There was a registered manager in post at Hampton House who had been working at the home since 1999. 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.’
People received care which ensured their safety. Staff supported people in a manner which minimised risk to people. Where people had suffered an accident or injury, the service had worked with relevant health professionals to ensure they received appropriate care and treatment. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure safe care and treatment to support people. People were kept safe by staff who had a good awareness of safeguarding policies and procedures and felt confident to raise any issues or concerns with the management team. The registered manager had carried out the relevant checks to ensure they employed suitable people at Hampton House. There were regular health and safety checks of the property to ensure it was safe for the people living at Hampton House.
People were receiving effective care and support. Staff had received appropriate training for their role. The registered manager had implemented a system to allow them to track staff training and ensure it was up to date. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals with the registered manager or deputy manager. Where required, the service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People had sufficient to eat and drink. Care staff and kitchen staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and worked hard to meet individual needs. The environment had been adapted to meet the needs of people living at the home. People were supported to personalise their living spaces.
The service was caring. People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff at the home. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of respect and dignity and were observed providing care which maintained peoples dignity. People had end of life care plans which reflected their needs and preferences.
The service was responsive to people’s needs. People received care which was person centred and were supported by staff who provided care which was personalised for each person. Staff on all shifts made recordings of the care provided to people. People were supported to engage in a range of activities based on their preferences and interests . There was a complaints procedure in place and where a complaint had been made, there was evidence this had been dealt with appropriately.
The service was well-led. The registered manger carried out regular quality assurance checks and audits to monitor the quality of the service provided to people. Appropriate action had been taken to address concerns identified in the audits. Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. The registered manager and staff were aware of the vision and values of the service and worked hard to provide a service which was person centred for each individual.
We carried out an unannounced inspection of Hampton House on 18 and 19 November 2014.
Hampton House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 32 older men and women with 28 people living there when we visited. People living at the home had a range of support needs including help with communication, personal care, moving about and support if they became confused or anxious. Staff support was provided at the home at all times and some people required the support of staff when away from the home.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were supported by a caring staff team who knew them very well and treated them as individuals. For example, staff worked with each person to identify their personal goals and then helped them to achieve them. People were encouraged to make choices and to do things for themselves as far as possible. In order to achieve this, a balance was struck between keeping people safe and supporting them to take risks and develop their independence.
People had access to a range of activities which prevented social isolation and promoted an active life. Staff helped people to stay well by seeking advice from health and social care professionals as needed. People enjoyed the meals provided, which they said were of a high quality. People also benefitted from an environment that helped them to stay safe and was pleasant to live in.
Staff felt well supported and had the training they needed to provide personalised support to each person. Staff met with their line manager to discuss their development needs and action was taken when concerns were raised. Learning took place following any incidents to prevent them happening again.
People and their relatives were encouraged to provide feedback which was used to enhance the service. They felt able to raise concerns and the issues were promptly addressed. Staff understood what they needed to do if they had concerns about the way a person was being treated. Staff were prepared to challenge and address poor care to keep people safe and happy.
We looked at people's individual files which incorporated their personal history, likes and dislikes, care plans and risk assessments and found they encompassed the safety and well-being of people who use the service and utilised the services of external agencies when required.
People who used the service and family members told us that they knew how to raise a concern or complaint and felt confident in doing. They said if they had any issues or concerns they could "talk to the manager." There were policies and procedures in place providing guidance and all staff had received training which was identified on the training schedule.
We discussed with people about what they would do if they had any concerns or worries. They told us they didn't have any but would talk to staff if they did. They told us they felt safe. One person said, "I have nothing to complain about, staff treat us well". We found that systems were in place to safeguard people from harm and that staff were able to maintain their knowledge and skills to meet people's needs.
Quality assurance systems were in place to assess the quality of service provided. Surveys were sent to people annually or after a stay for respite care giving them the opportunity to give feedback about their experiences.