Archived: Hampton House

The evidence we collected helped us to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes the records we looked at and what people using the service and staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary, please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. The staff and manager had a good understanding of whistle blowing policies. There was a comprehensive induction process and ongoing learning about safeguarding for the staff team.

A senior member of staff organised the staff rota to ensure appropriate staff cover that was needed. The rota's take people's care needs into account when making decisions about the staff numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required in the staff team. There were policies and procedures in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected. This helped to ensure that people were kept safe.

Is the service effective?

We saw people were treated with dignity and care. We saw that when people made decisions they were respected. Staff had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and knew them well. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care safely and effectively. There were sufficient staff who were trained and supported in their role to meet the needs of people. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.

Is the service caring?

One person told us, 'I find the care here very very good. The staff are very respectful and don't invade your privacy.' We saw that people were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw the staff and manager were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. Everyone we spoke with said that the service was caring.

Is the service responsive?

There was a clear procedure to audit the service and check that people were satisfied with the care and support they received. The agency received internal audit checks by the organisation to ensure quality standards were maintained. A visiting health professional told us, 'They always follow through my medical advice and they always contact us if there's a problem.'

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. We found that the care and support was centred around individual needs. All staff were aware of peoples choices, preferences and support needs. Care plans had been written to reflect this. The home had policies and procedures in place that staff knew about to make sure people and staff were supported and protected. A visiting social worker told us, 'They are good and they keep in touch with the families, the staff treat people well and the manager is pro-active.'

The people who lived at Hampton House received varying levels of personal care and support. Some people only required well being checks, whilst others received a higher level of care and support.

People we spoke with were very satisfied with the level of service provided. One person told us, 'It's a very friendly place and the staff are lovely.' Another person said, 'There is nothing I would change.' People told us the staff treated them with dignity and respect and asked permission before carrying out personal care. They confirmed staff turned up on time and delivered care as they wished. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's needs and what support they required.

Staff we spoke with knew what they would do to keep people safe if they observed or suspected abuse. We saw there was an effective recruitment procedure that ensured staff were both suitable and competent to meet the needs of the people who lived at Hampton House.

We saw there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided and to gain the views of the people who lived there.