Archived: Hampton Court

Updated 16 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

We received information of concern about infection control and prevention measures at this service. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 3 March 2021 and was unannounced.

Updated 16 March 2021

Hampton Court EMI Rest Home provides accommodation for up to 26 people who have dementia. The home is in a residential area of Southport and close to the town centre, Accommodation is provided over three floors with the lounge and dining areas on the ground floor. A passenger lift provides access to the upper floors.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service maintained effective systems to safeguard people from abuse.

The service operated in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

The service had a complaints’ procedure. We saw evidence that complaints had been responded to in a professional and timely manner by the registered manager. Relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and they would be acted on.

People's needs were assessed and recorded by suitably qualified and experienced staff. Risk assessments, a plan of care and supporting care documents were completed to help ensure people’s needs were met; this included cultural diversity and protected characteristics. We found some minor inconsistencies in the detail of information recorded to support individualised care. The registered manager said they would act to improve these records.

We saw evidence that the service learned from incidents and issues identified during audits. It was clear from incident records that staff were vigilant in monitoring people’s behaviours to minimise risk and provide the right level of support.

It was evident that the staff team knew people well and had a good knowledge of their individual support needs. People using the service and relatives had a close working relationship with the staff.

People told us that staff treated them with kindness and respect; this view was also shared by relatives. Staff were clear about the need to support people's rights and needs regarding equality and diversity. Consent was sought from people at the appropriate time.

The service ensured that staff were trained in appropriate subjects. This training was subject to review to ensure that staff were equipped to provide safe, effective care and support.

We saw clear evidence of staff working effectively to deliver positive outcomes for people. People we reviewed were receiving care and support which included advice from external health and social care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People using the service, relatives and staff were involved in discussions about the service and were asked to share their views. This was achieved through daily contact by the managers and staff, via meetings and completion of satisfaction surveys. We saw positive responses and suggestions to improve practice were acted on by the registered manager.

Staff had been appropriately checked when they were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

Medicines were administered safely by staff who were trained and deemed competent. Medicines were subject to auditing to ensure the overall management remained safe.

Policies and procedures provided guidance to staff regarding expectations and performance.

Menus offered a varied choice of hot and cold home cooked meals and people's specific dietary requirements and preferences were considered. People living in the home were very complimentary regarding the meals.

There was a clear management structure and people, relatives and staff were positive regarding the registered manager’s leadership of the home.

Quality assurance systems and processes were in place to monitor standards. We spoke with the registered manager regarding consideration around more in-depth auditing in areas such as, privacy and dignity to support staff practices. Following the inspection, the registered manager advised us that a more focused dignity audit that would be introduced to monitor this more closely.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to registration. For example, notifications had been submitted in a timely manner and the ratings from the last inspection were displayed as required, including the provider website.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.