CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hampton Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Hampton Care Home rated Good; a focused inspection found safe care and stronger leadership after concerns were raised.
Inspectors visited on two days and reviewed safeguarding, staffing, medicines, infection control, care records and management systems. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives, friends and health professionals.
The inspection followed concerns about management and protection from abuse, as well as a COVID-19 outbreak. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. They found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems, clean premises and effective infection control.
The home had a newly registered manager and inspectors found the service was open, organised and focused on learning from problems. The overall rating stayed Good. The inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. Ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Safeguarding
The home had safeguarding and whistle-blowing procedures. Staff were trained to recognise and report abuse, and the manager understood how to investigate concerns and involve outside agencies.
“Systems and processes were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, including criminal record checks, identity checks and references, had been completed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and wishes.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were organised safely. The medication records inspected had no recording errors or omissions, and staff handling medicines had been trained and assessed as competent.
“People's medicine records were kept up to date with no recording errors or omissions found on any of the MAR sheets we looked at.” from the report
Leadership and improvement
The new management team was seen as open and approachable. Managers used audits, feedback and action plans to identify lessons and improve care.
“The quality and safety of the service people received was routinely monitored by managers and nursing staff at both a provider and service level through regular audits, checks and stakeholder feedback.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home followed current infection control procedures, including those linked to COVID-19, and used protective equipment safely.
“We were assured the service was following current infection prevention and control (IPC) procedures, including those associated with COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What has changed since the safeguarding concerns mentioned in the report, and how are new concerns investigated and shared with families?
- 02Who is currently the registered manager, and how stable is the current management and nursing team?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain enough for people's needs, including when agency staff are used?
- 04How are medicines checked now, and how do you make sure records remain complete and accurate?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be fully inspected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 2022 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, September 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care and stronger leadership, but Effective remains Requires improvement and was only partly inspected.
Inspectors visited on 18 and 19 August 2020. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers, staff and a health professional. They also checked care plans, staff records, medicines records and management systems.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found medicines were given safely, staffing was adequate, infection control systems were in place, and managers had improved checks and oversight.
Effective was inspected only in relation to staff support, so it was not fully re-rated. The home had improved supervision and appraisals, and was no longer in breach of the previous staff-support regulation. The Effective rating remained Requires improvement until a full inspection.
Medicines management
Medicines were given as prescribed. Staff had training and competency checks, and managers carried out regular audits.
“Medicines systems were well-organised, and people told us they received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found systems for preventing infection, including COVID-19 controls, hand hygiene, distancing, testing and protective equipment.
“There were robust systems in place to assess and respond to risks regarding infection prevention and control, including those associated with COVID-19.” from the report
Improved leadership
The new managers were seen as approachable and had introduced more regular audits, checks and action plans to improve the home.
“At this inspection we found the service had followed the action plan we had asked them to send us and improved the way the home was now managed.” from the report
Better staff support
Staff had more opportunities for supervision, reflection and appraisal than at the previous inspection.
“Staff now had sufficient opportunities to reflect on their working practices and professional development.” from the report
Manager stability
needs fixingThe home had experienced frequent changes of manager. A new permanent manager had applied for registration, but was not registered at the time of inspection.
“The service had not had a registered manager for two years.” from the report
Effective not fully assessed
needs fixingThe Effective question remained Requires improvement because inspectors only checked staff support, rather than the whole area.
“We will assess all of the key question at the next comprehensive inspection of the service.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's application to be registered with the CQC been completed, and who is legally responsible for the home now?
- 02How will you maintain continuity of management, given the high turnover of managers in recent years?
- 03What further improvements are planned to move the Effective rating from Requires improvement?
- 04What were the previous ratings for Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be fully assessed?
- 05How are medicines audits and learning from medicines errors being checked now?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led and a targeted inspection of part of Effective; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 2020 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 Hampton Care Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Good
- March 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Richmond upon Thames
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 £980 to £1,270 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.