CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Signature-Hopton
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors checked infection prevention and control and staff recruitment arrangements. They were assured about infection control, visits, protective equipment, testing and managing outbreaks, but did not review the whole Safe question.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, skills and support needed to care for people. People received care based on their needs and wishes, with suitable support for consent, food, health and wellbeing.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not looked at during this inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and plans were up to date. People were supported to raise concerns, take part in activities, keep relationships and communicate in ways they understood.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers used audits, feedback and daily checks to monitor quality and learn lessons. People, relatives, staff and professionals gave positive feedback about the management.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Signature-Hopton was rated Good overall; inspectors found effective, responsive and well-led care, but Safe was only partly inspected.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 02 March 2022. One inspector spoke with five people and six staff. They also checked care plans, staff records, complaints, surveys and quality checks, and received feedback from two community professionals.
The inspectors found sustained improvements in staff training and support, complaints handling and management checks. People said they were happy with the care. Care plans were up to date and personalised, and people were supported with food, health appointments, activities, communication and relationships.
The home was clean and infection control arrangements were suitable, including arrangements for visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. However, Safe was inspected only in part and Caring was not reviewed during this visit.
Staff training
Staff had completed the training needed for the people they supported. This included mental health and dementia awareness training, as well as induction and regular refreshers.
“Staff had completed all the training they needed to meet the needs of the people they supported, which included, a comprehensive induction, and additional mental health and dementia care awareness training.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, preferences and wishes. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“People's care plans were up to date, personalised and contained detailed information about their strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their personal, emotional and health care needs.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Managers carried out regular audits and daily checks. They used feedback and action plans to improve the service.
“The quality and safety of the service people received was routinely monitored by the managers, at both a provider and service level.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in social, cultural and recreational activities. The home also supported people to maintain important relationships.
“People were encouraged and supported by staff to participate in various social and cultural activities at the care home and in the local community, which reflected their social interests and spiritual needs and wishes.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including COVID-19.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current position on the Safe question, which was only partly inspected during this visit?
- 02What was the previous Caring rating, and what checks have been carried out since it was not reviewed here?
- 03How do you make sure staff training and supervision remain up to date?
- 04How are complaints and feedback from residents and relatives used to make changes?
- 05How are current visiting and infection control arrangements explained to families?
This was a focused inspection of Effective, Responsive and Well-led, with infection prevention and control and staff recruitment checked under Safe; Caring was not reviewed and some ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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, February 2020
Signature-Hopton is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care and improvements, but some areas were not yet consistently effective, responsive or well-led, and it is no longer in special measures.
Two inspectors visited without notice on 20 January 2020. They spoke with three people, six staff and one visiting professional. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment files, complaints records, policies and training records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Caring. Inspectors found improvements in fire safety, risk plans, medicines, infection control, staff training and care planning. People said they felt safe and were treated with respect, dignity and kindness.
Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The home still needed to show that improvements would last. Further work was needed to make the building more accessible for people with dementia, and some shifts had only female care workers despite ongoing efforts to recruit more male staff.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The home had been in special measures since November 2018, but inspectors found it was no longer inadequate overall or in any key question, so it was removed from special measures. The provider was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at the previous inspection.
Clear risk planning
Risk plans covered areas such as fire safety, self-neglect, personal care and behaviour. They gave staff practical guidance about keeping people safe.
“Risk management plans were now comprehensive and gave staff clear guidance on how to keep people safe, when faced with identified risks.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely. Records for medicines used when needed included the reasons they were given.
“Medicines were stored safely, recorded appropriately and stocks and balance were accurate.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices and maintain their independence where it was safe.
“People continued to receive care and support from staff that treated them with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans covered people's mental health, physical health, communication, social and medical needs. They were reviewed and updated.
“Care plans were personalised and tailored to people's individual needs.” from the report
Improved oversight
The provider had introduced action plans and regular audits. Issues found through checks were acted on more promptly than at the previous inspection.
“Formal audits were in place to check and monitor the quality of service.” from the report
Improvements not yet proven to last
needs fixingThe home had improved, but inspectors wanted evidence that the changes would continue over time. This affected the Effective, Responsive and Well-led ratings.
“The provider will need to demonstrate that these improvements are sustainable over time before this key question can be rated as 'good'.” from the report
Further dementia-friendly changes needed
needs fixingThe home had worked on signage and decoration, but inspectors found more work was needed to make it fully accessible for people with dementia.
“there was further work required to make the service further accessible for people with dementia.” from the report
- 01What further changes are planned to make the building easier for people with dementia to understand and use?
- 02How many male care workers are currently employed, and how do you make sure each shift has staff who can meet my relative's needs?
- 03What evidence can you show that the improvements in care, activities and management will continue?
- 04How are my relative's personal goals, activities and care plan reviewed with them?
- 05How will you use people's feedback and complaints to make further improvements?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, with improvements compared with the previous inspection published on 6 August 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 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 Signature-Hopton
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 March 2016.
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 Lambeth
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 £1,250 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“She is just one of those people that looks around, sees what needs to be done and does it.”
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.