CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hampton Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines, risk assessments and infection control were not always managed safely. Staffing levels were generally safe and safeguarding concerns were reported and investigated.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some people were not consistently supported with their assessed diets, and records about health support and oral care were incomplete. Staff had the training, skills and supervision needed for their roles.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect, knew them well and supported their choices and independence. Inspectors raised a concern about some language used in the home.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received care that responded to their needs and preferences. They had opportunities for activities, relationships and communication support, and complaints were listened to and used to improve care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The management team was responsive when inspectors raised concerns, but audits had not identified problems with medicines, risks and records. A required statutory notification had also not been sent to CQC until the inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Hampton Court was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but serious problems with medicines, risk management, cleanliness and oversight.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 17 January 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management documents.
The home was not always safe. Medicines were not consistently administered or stored safely. Risk assessments and care plans did not always give staff the information they needed. Some areas were not clean, and infection control procedures were not always followed.
Care was rated Good for being caring and responsive. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and respected their dignity, choices and independence. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, as were Safe, Effective and Well-led.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw positive interactions, and staff supported people's dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff who treated people as individuals and with dignity and respect.” from the report
Responsive personal care
Staff knew people well and provided support in line with their preferences. People could take part in meaningful activities and maintain relationships.
“Staff clearly knew people well and supported them in line with their preferences.” from the report
Safeguarding and consent systems
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards processes were in place.
“Records showed that any potential safeguarding allegations had been reported, recorded and investigated by the registered manager in a timely manner.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had completed induction and shadow shifts and received ongoing training and supervision. Inspectors found they had the knowledge and skills for their roles.
“Staff had the required knowledge, skills and experience to undertake their role.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicines were not administered as prescribed. Covert medicines and stock checks were not consistently managed, creating a risk even though inspectors found no evidence of harm.
“Medicines were not always administered safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Risks were not always managed
seriousSome risk assessments and care plans were missing, inaccurate or not detailed enough. One person did not receive a required falls sensor mat promptly and then fell, although they were not harmed.
“Risks to people's health and welfare were not consistently assessed or managed.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousSome communal areas were visibly dirty, cleaning schedules were inadequate and clinical waste bins were not always used correctly.
“We found serious concerns with the cleanliness of some areas, including blinds in the communal lounge, which were visibly dirty and carpets which were soiled in places.” from the report
Dietary support and records
needs fixingSome people assessed as needing reduced-sugar diets were not consistently supported to follow them. The home could not show that health professionals had agreed the diets were unnecessary.
“Some people were not supported to follow appropriate diets.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
seriousAudits had not identified several issues found by inspectors. Records were not always accurate or up to date, and one statutory notification had not been made as required.
“Governance processes were not effective to ensure concerns could be identified and used to improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine administration, covert medicines and stock checks since the inspection?
- 02How are risk assessments and care plans now checked so they accurately reflect each person's current health risks?
- 03What has been done to improve cleaning schedules, communal cleanliness and the handling of clinical waste?
- 04How are people's special diets, including reduced-sugar diets, agreed with health professionals and recorded?
- 05How will management audits identify problems before they put people at risk?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered care home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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.
Every inspection of Hampton Court
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 August 2021.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.