CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hampton Lodge (St Basils)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable staffing on the day, safe recruitment, safeguarding arrangements, risk assessments and safe storage and administration of medicines. However, some people and visitors reported long waits for assistance.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, supervision and support. People were supported with consent, nutrition and access to healthcare, and the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards processes were followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. Staff offered choices, supported independence and protected people's privacy and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's needs, preferences and life histories. People had access to group and individual activities, and complaints were recorded and followed up.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a calm atmosphere, regular management meetings and systems for checking quality and making improvements. There was no registered manager in post at the time, but a new manager had applied to register after the inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, although some people and families felt staff could take too long to respond.
Inspectors visited without warning on 24 and 25 July 2017. They spoke with six people living at the home, four visiting family members, the manager and staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, safeguarding, recruitment and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing on the visit, safe medicines systems, trained staff, respectful care, personalised care plans and a good range of activities.
Some people and family members said they sometimes waited a long time for help. Inspectors did not see unsafe delays during the visit, but the manager agreed to review how staff were deployed and how they responded to requests.
The home had improved since the February 2015 inspection, when six regulations had been breached and the service was rated Requires Improvement. In June 2016 it was no longer in breach, but Safe and Responsive still needed improvement. This inspection found enough progress for all ratings to become Good.
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent before giving medicines. Instructions covered people's preferences, allergies, variable doses and medicines given when needed.
“Medicines were stored and handled safely by staff who were trained and had undergone a competency check before they administered medicines to people.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
Inspectors saw staff speak respectfully, offer choices and take time to explain care. They protected people's dignity during personal care and movement.
“They pulled the curtains to maintain the person's dignity and spoke with them all the time, checking they were comfortable” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, communication, life history and interests. The home offered a seven-day activities programme as well as individual activities.
“There was a seven day programme of activities supported by two activity coordinators.” from the report
Improvement and oversight
Managers used meetings, audits, surveys and an improvement plan to monitor the home. The report says the home had improved from Requires Improvement to Good in all five areas.
“The provider had put an improvement action plan in place following the review.” from the report
No registered manager at the visit
needs fixingThe home did not have a registered manager when inspectors visited. A new manager had been in post for seven weeks and had applied to register after the inspection.
“There was no registered manager in post at the time of this inspection.” from the report
Previous laundry problems
minorTwo people reported clothes being lost or damaged in the laundry. The manager had changed the procedures, and people had not reported further problems by the inspection.
“Two people told us they had had problems with their clothes either being lost or damaged in the laundry.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells and requests for help answered, especially at busy times?
- 02What changes were made after the inspection to how staff are deployed?
- 03Is the manager now registered with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home if registration is still pending?
- 04How are medicines such as creams, ointments and 'as required' medicines checked now?
- 05Have there been any further problems with clothes being lost or damaged in the laundry?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, medicines, staffing, safeguarding and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2017 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 Lodge (St Basils)
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2017Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 November 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Southampton
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 £1,350 a week. 39 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.