Hampton Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Improvements had been made to how the provider worked to keep people safe. Although staff had not always completed their training, they were able to recognise the signs of abuse and what actions they would take as a response to potential abuse. Risks to people were assessed and plans put in place to reduce them. The staff worked with other services where people needed additional support from other health professionals. Regular checks were carried out on the maintenance of the building equipment. There was not always enough staff to adequately meet people's needs when they needed it sometimes meaning people had to wait for longer periods of time before receiving support.

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 and relatives did not raise any concerns with us around the learning culture.

Leaders told us that where learning from lessons was identified following incidents they were shared with other services owned by the provider in order to allow each location to learn from the lessons of others. The registered manager told us they were working with the local authority in order to improve their ability to respond and report safeguarding concerns.

Leaders aimed to maximise the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by identifying, assessing and reviewing information collected by the service. They had introduced reflection/lessons learnt sheets which were used to capture information following incidents and lessons learnt.

People told us the staff knew and understood what support they required during their stay at the service and they regularly saw professionals such as chiropodists and doctors in order to support them during their stay.

Leaders told us that they assessed people’s needs and risks prior to accepting them into the service. This was to ensure they could meet people’s needs safely.

The local authority had been working with the provider and had identified areas where improvement was required. An action plan had been agreed following previous inspections with the most recent inspection showing that the service had completed all of the actions they had identified.

Systems were in place to support people on admission with a focus on risk assessment and ensuring people were safe. Care records showed people’s needs and risks were assessed prior to and on admission to the service. Any health needs that people had were detailed in the care plans and guidance was in place for staff to follow to enable them to monitor people’s health and take action if people’s health deteriorated. This guidance included which pathways and/or professionals would need to be contacted and when.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Leaders told us they regularly reviewed peoples care plans in order to ensure that their needs were met, and risks were managed effectively, this included speaking with people and their families. In order to ensure this was done regularly leaders told us they had implemented a service user of the day, which meant each person had their records reviewed at least once a month. Staff told us they understood peoples risk assessments and the plans in place to support people. They also told us they were made aware of any changes to people’s plans when changes were required. Staff told us about people's individual emergency evacuation plans which were in place to support people in an emergency.

Most staff supported people safely in line with their risk assessments and management plans. Observations showed most staff understood how to support people to manage risks to their safety. For example, people were observed having support with their mobility, transfers and meals in line with the guidance contained in care plans and risk assessments. However, we observed 1 member of staff attempting to support a person to eat who was falling asleep. Supporting people to eat who are falling asleep increases the risk of choking and is not safe practice.

Risk assessment processes in place ensured all risks were identified and assessed with regular monitoring and reviews in place. Risk assessments completed were personalised to the individual's needs and following incidents or reviews, updates were made to the plans. Care plans were detailed and held information on how to care for each service user. Step by step guidance was in place to break a task down for staff members. Care plans were person centred and captured peoples’ personal characteristics.

People and their relatives raised no concerns with us about the safety of the environment.

Leaders told us they had made environmental safety changes including door guards, finger guards and replacement of older equipment. They also told us they had set up regular equipment checks.

We observed staff using equipment such as hoists whilst on site and found there were no concerns related to their use.

Leaders regularly attended Health and safety meetings where they discussed safety and the oversight of the equipment and environment safety checks. We saw that safety certificates were in place and equipment checks and been completed.

People told us they received care and support when they needed it.

The registered manger told us they used a staffing tool to ensure there were enough staff to keep people safe. Staff told us they completed an induction and training when they started to work at the service and that regular training updates were provided.

We saw people were mostly supported in a prompt manner to move around the home, have meals, drinks and their personal care needs met when they needed it. Staff were observed engaging with people in a caring and non-rushed manner. However, we did see people sometimes had to wait for staff to respond to their needs. For example, a person knocked a drink over themselves, but staff were unable to support in a timely manner as they were supporting other people at the time. We saw these short delays did not have an impact on people’s safety or wellbeing.

Staff were recruited safely and they received appropriate training and support. Systems were in place that identified the numbers and skill mix of staff required to provide safe care. The provider had recently engaged with the local authority to access additional training for the staff to further improve moving and repositioning and safeguarding practices at the service.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.