CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hampstead Road Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that protective equipment, hygiene, testing, social distancing and outbreak arrangements were being managed safely.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during a targeted pandemic inspection.
Inspectors visited the home in November 2020 as part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes. The visit was announced and focused on how the home managed infection risks during the coronavirus pandemic.
They were assured that staff used protective equipment safely, followed hygiene guidance and understood the infection control policy. The home was also carrying out regular testing for people and staff, and had arrangements for shielding, social distancing and managing possible outbreaks.
The home used photo identity badges, outdoor seating pods and video calls to help people keep in touch with families. Staff training, supplies of protective equipment and daily management checks were also described positively.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for safe care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was used properly and safely, and that staff followed current infection control guidance.
“Through what we saw, our conversations with senior managers, and audits and checking process, we were assured the provider was ensuring PPE was used properly and safely.” from the report
Family contact
The home provided outdoor seating pods, video calls and regular newsletters to help people stay connected with family and friends.
“These offer people and families and friends a safe way to meet up outside.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had received training and regular updates during the pandemic, helping them support people safely.
“Staff had been well trained and were regularly updated during the pandemic.” from the report
Checks and planning
The provider had planned ahead for the pandemic, kept a full supply of protective equipment and carried out daily management checks.
“At least daily manager audits and checks were undertaken as well to keep monitor quality and safety.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are people and staff tested now, and what happens if someone has a positive result?
- 02How are visits currently arranged, including use of the outdoor seating pods and video calls?
- 03How often is infection control training updated for staff?
- 04How are the daily management checks recorded and followed up?
- 05What are the current arrangements for safely admitting someone new to the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Hampstead Road Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, but staff training and supervision needed improvement.
The unannounced inspection took place on 15 October 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with the manager and six staff, and reviewed care records, staff records, medicines, incidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement because some staff supervision and refresher training were overdue.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable recruitment checks and protection from abuse. Staff knew people well and treated them kindly. Care records included personal histories, preferences and communication guidance.
There was also a concern about staff standing while helping one person eat. There was no assessment or care plan explaining why this was safe. The manager had an action plan to bring training and supervision up to date.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and checked safely. Staff who administered them were trained and regularly observed to confirm their competence.
“People's medicines were stored, administered and managed safely.” from the report
Kind staff
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and residents. Staff were attentive, respectful and supported people in ways that suited them.
“The staff team we met were kind and caring.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
People were supported with activities at home and in the community. Staff planned activities around individual interests and practical support needs.
“This is a commendable example of staff working hard to support someone to meet their social needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits and an improvement plan to identify and address shortfalls. The plan included timescales and named people responsible for actions.
“An action plan was in place to address these areas.” from the report
Overdue training and supervision
needs fixingSome staff had not received supervision regularly, and several were overdue refresher training. This could affect whether staff had the skills and support needed for their roles.
“Staff supervision and staff training had not been kept up to date for all staff.” from the report
Eating support was not assessed
seriousOne person was helped to eat while staff stood next to them. There was no risk assessment or care plan explaining this approach, which inspectors said could increase the risk of harm, including choking.
“The person had lived at the home for many years, and because there was no assessment of risk or support plan in place there was a risk of harm to them.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the overdue refresher training in health and safety, infection control, fire safety and the specific needs of residents?
- 02How often does each staff member receive supervision, and how are goals and action points recorded?
- 03What risk assessment and care plan are now in place for the person who needed help with eating?
- 04How does the home make sure staff sit beside people, rather than stand over them, when providing help with meals?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans, activities and communication preferences?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and record checks; the previous inspection in August 2017 was focused. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 November 2018 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 Hampstead Road Care Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 November 2010.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.