CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hampden Hall Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were safely managed and there were enough staff. They noted that repositioning was late in a minority of cases and that the electronic system did not always show what action had been taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans generally described people's health needs, staff were trained and healthcare links were effective. Inspectors found limited dental information for two people and some gaps in following up lasting power of attorney applications.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were generally treated with kindness, dignity and respect and were involved in choices about their care. One person said they had felt rushed, and another said a staff member had shouted at them; the provider investigated this.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home offered group and one-to-one activities, supported contact with families and met people's communication needs. Inspectors found some gaps in people's background records, including religious information.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had audits, feedback systems and an action plan for improvement. Inspectors found that some agency checks and the electronic care-record system needed more proactive oversight.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Hampden Hall Care Centre was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some records and follow-up needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 August and 7 September 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found a clean and well-maintained environment, enough staff, safe medicines management, trained staff and care that was generally kind and respectful.
The inspection followed concerns about choking management after a person died. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern during the inspection. They also found that improvements had been made since the previous inspection, and the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
There were still some gaps. These included late repositioning records in a minority of cases, limited dental information for two people, and some follow-up records that were not fully up to date. The home acted on several of these issues during the inspection.
Clean and suitable environment
Inspectors found the home safe, clean, well equipped and well maintained. Areas for people living with dementia had been adapted to support orientation and reduce distractions.
“People's care and support was provided in a safe, clean, well equipped, well-furnished and well-maintained environment which met people's sensory and physical needs.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines policies, training, storage and electronic administration records were in place. Inspectors found that staff understood medicines procedures, including for medicines given through an enteral tube.
“Staff consistently completed electronic records to confirm medicines were administered as directed by the prescriber.” from the report
Kind and patient care
People and relatives were mostly positive about staff's kindness, patience and understanding of dementia. Staff used reassurance and gentle encouragement when people needed more time.
“People told us they received kind and compassionate care from staff who protected and respected their privacy and dignity and understood each person's individual needs.” from the report
Activities and family contact
The home offered group and individual activities and used technology to help people stay in touch with relatives during COVID-19 restrictions. Staff also supported people's personal wishes and interests.
“Activity co-ordinators planned a range of group and one to one activities with people.” from the report
Improved leadership
The report says the home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Management used audits, feedback and action plans to identify and address issues.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Late repositioning records
needs fixingRepositioning was recorded as late in a minority of cases. Inspectors could not always see an audit trail showing what checks had been made on the person's wellbeing or how recurrence would be prevented.
“The provider had introduced a new electronic system to improve recording and monitoring of people's care needs and risk management.” from the report
Gaps in dental information
needs fixingTwo care records had limited information about dental hygiene outcomes. One dental assessment had not yet been completed, although staff knew the person's concern about visiting a dentist.
“However, we received mixed feedback about access to dental care.” from the report
Some care experiences were not positive
needs fixingOne person said they had felt rushed during personal care, and another said a staff member had shouted at them. The provider took immediate action to investigate.
“One person told us they had felt rushed by a staff member with their personal care and another person told us that staff were "nice and kind" but a staff member had shouted at them.” from the report
Agency oversight
minorThe home used a significant level of agency staff. Although profiles were checked, the provider said it did not routinely audit agency systems unless there was a concern, and agreed to review this approach.
“The provider told us they would only complete audits of agencies' systems and records if there was cause for concern, rather than routinely to check compliance with their agreed contract and regulatory requirements.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that repositioning happens on time and that any delay is followed up and recorded?
- 02How are dental assessments, dental hygiene and people's wishes about dental treatment recorded and reviewed?
- 03What is the current balance between permanent and agency staff, and how do you check agency staff skills and training?
- 04How do you confirm who has legal authority to make decisions or act in a person's best interests?
- 05What action followed the concerns about a person feeling rushed or being shouted at during care?
This was an unannounced inspection over two dates that looked at all five CQC questions, the care home environment and infection prevention measures; the previous inspection had rated every area Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Hampden Hall Care Centre
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 July 2019.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.