CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hampton Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led and rated this area Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited without warning on 14 November 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, personalised care, good support with health needs, and activities that reflected people's interests.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Quality checks had not always found problems with infection control, medicines records or the organisation of lunchtime. The home took immediate action and said it would increase checks.
The overall rating was Good. The previous rating under the former provider was Requires Improvement, published in December 2019.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff available across the home to provide planned care and respond to people's requests.
“There were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that people were treated with dignity and offered choices.
“The home had a warm and friendly atmosphere and all of the people we spoke with felt staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's wishes, preferences, life histories and communication needs. Staff knew people well and adapted their support.
“People's needs were regularly reviewed so care provided reflected their current needs.” from the report
Activities and social spaces
People could take part in group or one-to-one activities. The home also provided busy and quieter communal spaces.
“Communal spaces throughout the building allowed people to spend time in busy or quieter areas of the home” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits did not always identify issues found by inspectors. Managers accepted this and said they would strengthen checks.
“Audit processes carried out by the registered manager and the compliance team had not always identified areas of concern.” from the report
Infection control practice
seriousSome staff practices were not in line with infection prevention guidance and could increase the risk of cross infection. The concern was discussed and immediate action was taken.
“For example, we observed some poor staff practice in relation to infection control, which may place people at risk of cross infection.” from the report
Medicines stock records
needs fixingFor one newly admitted person, the medicines stock record did not accurately show how many medicines were held. Managers said a full stock check would be completed.
“Medicines checks had not identified a concern found with one person's medicines.” from the report
Lunchtime organisation
minorLunch appeared disorganised and took a long time. People did receive their meals, but inspectors said a calmer and more streamlined approach would have been better.
“The lunchtime experience we observed appeared disorganised and was protracted.” from the report
- 01What infection control changes were made after the inspection, and how do managers now check that staff follow them?
- 02What did the full medicines stock take find for people who had recently moved into the home?
- 03What changes have been made to make lunchtimes calmer and better organised?
- 04What additional training have staff completed to support people living with advanced dementia?
- 05How often are quality audits now carried out, and how are actions checked to make sure problems are resolved?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the report says this was the first inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 2023 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, December 2019
Hampton Court was rated Requires Improvement; safety management improved and special measures ended, but records and some care planning still needed work.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 6 and 7 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, complaints, safety records, quality checks and recruitment records.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. Serious health and safety concerns had been addressed. Fire safety, water temperature checks, evacuation plans, electrical testing and cleanliness had improved. The home was no longer breaking regulations at this inspection.
However, some care plans and daily records were not fully up to date. Information about covert medicines and end of life wishes was incomplete. Inspectors also found missed opportunities to provide meaningful activities. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with Good ratings for effective and caring care, and Requires Improvement ratings for safe, responsive and well-led care.
The home had been in Special Measures since 18 June 2019. It was no longer rated Inadequate and was taken out of Special Measures after showing improvement. The provider had complied with conditions placed on its registration.
Improved safety management
The home had addressed the serious health and safety problems found previously. Fire checks, water temperature monitoring, evacuation plans and electrical testing had been improved and sustained.
“The registered manager and provider had made significant improvements to the health and safety management of the building and environment since the last inspection.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were compassionate and knew people well. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance, respecting choices, protecting dignity and encouraging independence.
“We observed spontaneous and natural interactions between people and staff and saw staff members offered people reassurance when they became distressed or anxious.” from the report
Good food and healthcare support
People were offered meal choices and staff understood dietary risks. The home worked with healthcare professionals and arranged support when people's health changed.
“Where people did not like their first choice of meal alternatives were offered by staff.” from the report
Improved leadership
The manager and provider accepted responsibility for earlier failings and introduced new communication systems, audits and an action plan.
“The registered manager and provider were open and honest about where mistakes had been made and took responsibility for the concerns found at our last inspection.” from the report
Incomplete covert medicines information
seriousNot all information about covert medicines was recorded and available to staff. This could lead to people receiving inconsistent support with these medicines.
“The lack of information about how medicine should be given may place people at risk of receiving inconsistent support.” from the report
Care records not always current
needs fixingSome care plans did not reflect people's current needs or give enough detail for staff to provide consistent care. Changes in one person's skin condition were recorded, but staff did not know what action had been taken.
“We found for some people who had lived at the home for a long time, their care plans required review to ensure only the most current information about their health was included.” from the report
Basic end of life plans
needs fixingEnd of life care plans contained only limited information about people's needs and wishes. The home had sought outside advice to improve them.
“We found information was minimal and contained only basic information.” from the report
Missed activity opportunities
minorSome people were left with little stimulation, even though others enjoyed sensory activities or group singing. Engagement varied, particularly for people needing one-to-one support.
“We observed there were some missed opportunities to engage people in meaningful occupation.” from the report
- 01How have you completed the review of care plans so they reflect each person's current needs?
- 02How do you record and check instructions for covert medicines?
- 03How will you make sure end of life plans include each person's wishes and detailed support needs?
- 04How do you monitor whether people are receiving meaningful activities, including one-to-one activities?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions and the care, treatment and premises provided by the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 2019 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 Court Care Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 2011.
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 Wolverhampton
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.