This was an unannounced inspection of Hampton Court EMI Rest Home. The inspection set out to answer our five questions:' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with people who lived at the home, their relatives, staff providing support and looking at records.
If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People who lived at the home and their families told us there was sufficient staff on duty at all times to meet the needs of the people. A family member told us, 'They seem to have plenty of staff and staff are always around and about the lounge.'
Arrangements were in place to monitor accidents and incidents and this included a process for analysing incidents each month so that any emerging themes could be identified.
A range of audits and checks were established to monitor the safety of the service provided. These included weekly medication audits and a monthly check of the care records.
The home protected the rights and welfare of the people in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). At the time of the inspection nobody who lived at the home was on a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) plan. The manager and senior care staff had attended DoLS training.
Is the service effective?
People we spent time with were satisfied with the care and said their needs were being met. A person told us, 'It's nice and clean here. My bedroom is comfortable and the food is perfect.'
Equally, family members we spoke with were pleased with the care and support their relatives received. A family member said to us, 'The staff are good. They take time out to talk to people. There is plenty going on and my [relative] is content and happy ' that is the main thing.'
Care plans were in place for each person. Care plans were reviewed each month to ensure they were current.
People told us they were satisfied with the food and menus. Arrangements were in place to monitor people's views of the meals served.
Is the service caring?
People who lived at the home told us staff were approachable, friendly and responsive. One of the people said, 'Everybody is very nice. We are not rushed or pushed to do to things we don't want to do.'
Family members we spoke with were all pleased with the care. A family member said to us, 'The minute we stepped in to the home we liked the feeling. The staff were nice and friendly and made us feel welcome. My [relative] knows who his keyworker is.'
Throughout the day of the inspection we observed care staff engaging with people in a positive, respectful and individualised way. Staff had a good knowledge of each person's needs.
Is the service responsive?
People's needs had been assessed before they moved to the home. Records confirmed people's preferences, interests and preferred routines had been recorded, and staff provided support in accordance with people's wishes.
People and/or their families said they were involved in decisions about their care. A family member told us, 'The staff communicate well and talk to me about my [relative's] care and support.'
Is the service well-led?
Processes to seek people's views about the quality of the service were in place. Feedback questionnaires were distributed to people and their families twice a year. In addition, monthly meetings with people living at the home took place. Families were also invited to attend these meetings.
Arrangements were in place for undertaking a staff survey to seek staff views about the working environment. Staff meetings were held six weekly. Training records informed us the majority of the staff team were up-to-date with their mandatory training. Staff told us the training was good and they were encouraged to participate in training. The staff we spoke with confirmed they received an annual appraisal and regular supervision.
In this report the names of two Registered Managers appear who were not in post and not managing the regulated activity at this location at the time of our inspection. Their names appear because they were still registered managers on our register when we inspected.