CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hampton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and staffing levels were sufficient. Medicines were administered safely, records were complete and the home was clean and free from odours.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and met. Staff had suitable training and support, and people were helped with food, healthcare and communication. Inspectors found some capacity reviews were not regular and not all DoLS conditions were being met at the time, but action was taken.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate Caring rating. It says staff were kind and considerate, and that people were treated with dignity and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and supported people's independence, communication, relationships and activities. Inspectors found some inconsistency in activity plans, which the manager updated during the inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had strong quality checks, open management and regular involvement of people, relatives and staff. Accidents, complaints and other information were used to make improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some legal reviews and activity records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home on three dates between 14 December 2023 and 4 January 2024. The first visit was unannounced, and one visit took place outside normal working hours. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
They found people felt safe and settled. Risks, staffing, recruitment, medicines, food, cleanliness and infection control were well managed. Staff were kind and understood people's needs. People were involved in their care, supported to make choices and helped to keep relationships and interests.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were each rated Good. The report does not give a separate Caring rating. The previous overall rating was also Good, published in September 2017.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given safely and records were fully completed. Staff had suitable training and checks for giving medicines.
“Medicines were administered safely and in line with prescribing guidelines.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
People told inspectors they felt safe and settled. Staff were attentive, understanding and supported people with dignity and respect.
“Staff were kind, considerate and very understanding towards people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped shape their care and were supported to have choice and control. The home supported people to be as independent as possible.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Strong management checks
The provider regularly reviewed care, accidents, complaints and staff skills. The report says concerns were acted on quickly.
“Robust quality assurance processes ensured all aspects of care delivery were reviewed regularly.” from the report
Legal reviews were not always up to date
needs fixingCapacity and best-interest decisions were in place, but inspectors found they were not reviewed regularly. The manager completed reviews after this was raised.
“MCA and best interest decisions were in place for people, however we noted these were not reviewed regularly.” from the report
DoLS conditions
needs fixingInspectors found that not all DoLS conditions were being met during the inspection. The manager took prompt action and introduced a plan to address this.
“During our inspection we found not all DOLs conditions was being met.” from the report
Activity records
needs fixingPeople took part in meaningful activities, but activity plans were not consistent. The manager updated the plans and put a process in place to check they were followed.
“There was inconsistency with people's activity plans. Following feedback, the registered manager updated all activity plans” from the report
- 01What plan was put in place to make sure every DoLS condition is now being met?
- 02How often are capacity and best-interest decisions reviewed, and how is this checked?
- 03How do you make sure each person's activity plan is followed consistently?
- 04How are people who do not communicate verbally involved in choices such as menus and activities?
- 05What further improvements are planned for the electronic care and medicines records?
The inspection covered Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; the report does not give a separate Caring rating, and ratings for key questions not inspected carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2024 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, March 2021
Hampton House was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found information about infection control at the entrance. Visitors had temperature checks and lateral flow tests before entering, and personal protective equipment was available.
Staff had training in infection prevention and control and using personal protective equipment. Inspectors were assured that the home was managing testing, social distancing, hygiene, outbreaks and its infection control policy.
The home was closed to visitors during national lockdown. Before this, it had used a garden visitor pod and supported people to stay in touch with family and friends by video and telephone. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control training
Staff had been trained to prevent infection and use personal protective equipment. Inspectors observed that staff understood their responsibilities.
“Staff were trained on how to keep people safe from the risk of infection and use PPE correctly.” from the report
Visitor safety checks
Visitors received information about infection control and were checked before entering. Personal protective equipment was available at reception.
“Temperature checks were completed, along with a lateral flow test to establish if visitors had any symptoms of COVID-19 before being admitted to the home.” from the report
Contact with families
The home used a visitor pod before lockdown and supported people to keep in touch with relatives and friends by video and telephone.
“Staff supported people to keep in touch with family and friends through video and phone calls to prevent isolation and promote people's mental wellbeing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visitor arrangements are in place now, and how are visitors checked before entering?
- 02How are people using the service and staff currently tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 03How do you make sure staff continue to use personal protective equipment safely?
- 04How will people keep in touch with family and friends if visits are restricted?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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 Hampton House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 May 2015.
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 Kirklees
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 £1,260 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.