CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Hamptons Retirement Home Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Medicines were generally given as prescribed, staff recruitment checks had been completed, and there were enough staff on duty during the visit, although some night shifts had been difficult to cover.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Auditing and monitoring had improved, but management checks still missed some risks. Care plans and risk assessments did not always contain key information, and medicine and supplement stock checks needed further improvement.
What inspectors found, February 2023
The Hamptons Retirement Home Ltd was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care but said management checks still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 December 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records and staff files, and checked infection control.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People said they felt safe, medicines were generally given as prescribed, recruitment checks had been completed, and there were enough staff on duty during the inspection. The home was clean and infection control arrangements were in place.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led, the same as at the previous inspection. Audits and checks had improved, but they did not always find risks such as a wet floor or an unlocked boiler-room door. Checks of medicine and supplement stocks also needed improvement.
The overall rating stayed Good because this inspection only looked at Safe and Well-led. Ratings for the other three questions were carried over from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe at the home. Staff knew how to report concerns and the manager investigated safety issues.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Medicines were mostly managed safely
Records showed prescribed medicines had been given. Staff understood timing instructions, and medicines needing extra checks were monitored and stored safely.
“Records we checked showed people had received their medication as it was prescribed.” from the report
Staff checks and skills
The home completed references and DBS checks before employing staff. Staff competencies were checked to make sure people were supported safely.
“Recruitment processes included robust checks to ensure only suitable staff were employed.” from the report
Kind, individual care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. The management team tried to understand people's individual needs, including helping someone who did not speak English as their first language.
“People and relatives we spoke with were complimentary about the staff and NI.” from the report
Environmental checks missed risks
needs fixingDaily checks did not identify an unlocked boiler-room door and a wet communal bathroom floor. These were fixed immediately and no one was harmed.
“For example, daily environmental checks had not identified an unlocked door to the boiler room and a wet floor in a communal bathroom.” from the report
Medicine and supplement stock control
needs fixingThe system for checking stock needed improvement to reduce over-stocking and support good stock rotation. One person's prescribed food supplements ran out for one day.
“However, the audit system in place to review stock counts of medicines and food supplements required improvement.” from the report
Some care plans lacked key information
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments did not always give staff all the information needed about health needs, including catheter care and what to do when someone became angry or upset.
“The provider's processes had not always ensured care plans and risk assessments always contained key information for staff to support people's health needs.” from the report
Night staffing could be difficult
minorInspectors found enough staff during the visit, but staff said some night shifts were difficult to cover. The manager was recruiting additional staff.
“All staff spoken with told us they thought the staffing levels were adequate; although on occasion there was difficulty in covering some night shifts.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure daily checks find wet floors, unlocked doors and other environmental risks?
- 02How do you prevent prescribed medicines and food supplements from running out, and how do you control over-stocking?
- 03Have the care plans and risk assessments for catheter care and distress or anger been updated?
- 04How are difficult night shifts covered, and are there enough permanent staff now?
- 05Who has responsibility for management decisions, and how do you check that improvements are being maintained?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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, June 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home needed to improve its leadership and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 April 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were generally safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew their needs and preferences. Staffing levels were sufficient, infection control was satisfactory and people were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found weaknesses in fire risk assessment records, medicines auditing and some other quality checks. The home had improved its medicines management and was no longer in breach of Regulation 12, but the inspection found that management systems did not always identify risks.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind, listened to them and took time to support them. Inspectors observed staff protecting people's dignity and responding calmly when someone became distressed.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion. People felt well-supported. People were listened to and could express their views.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and goals. Staff knew people well and supported independence while managing risks.
“Care plans were person-centred and considered people's preferences, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Consistent staff team
People were supported by a small, consistent team. This helped staff understand people's needs and preferences.
“People were cared for by a consistent team of staff. This promoted continuity of care and ensured, as far as possible, that they had support from staff who knew and understood their needs and preferences.” from the report
Improved medicines management
Inspectors found significant improvement since the previous inspection. People received the correct doses and the earlier breach of Regulation 12 had been resolved.
“During this inspection we found significant improvements had been made and the provider is no longer in breach of regulation 12.” from the report
Good support for contact and activities
The home helped people stay in touch with families, including through video calls, and offered activities adapted to people's abilities and interests.
“People told us that there were various activities that staff always tried to include everyone regardless of ability.” from the report
Medicines audit system
needs fixingThe electronic medicines system reduced recorded stock by two doses on every chart inspected. Although hand counts showed medicines were present and people were not put at risk, audits had not spotted the system error.
“we found that the e-MAR system used had consistently reduced the number of stock medicines for all e-MAR charts we viewed by two doses.” from the report
Fire safety records for the annex
seriousThe dining annex did not have a completed fire risk assessment and its alarms were not linked to the main control panel at the time of inspection. The provider said work was completed the next day, but an updated assessment was still due.
“The annex building which housed the dining hall did not have a fire risk assessment, (FRA) completed.” from the report
CCTV privacy process
needs fixingCCTV had been used in communal areas and the car park without the required application to the Information Commissioner's Office. The system was switched off after inspection while further consultation was planned.
“the provider had not made appropriate applications to the office of the information commissioner (OIC).” from the report
End of life plans
needs fixingEnd of life plans recorded people's wishes but were not detailed enough to guide staff fully about preferences and care.
“However, the plans were not detailed and only gave basic information such as who to contact.” from the report
Dementia-friendly surroundings
minorThe home was clean and generally well maintained, but there were few contrasting colours and most bedroom doors were not personalised to help people recognise their rooms.
“the décor was not always suitable for those living with Dementia.” from the report
- 01Has the updated fire risk assessment for the annex been completed, and are its fire and smoke alarms now linked to the central control panel?
- 02How do you now check medicines stock when the electronic medicines system is updated?
- 03What action has been taken about CCTV, and has the required Information Commissioner's Office application been made before any system is switched on again?
- 04How have end of life care plans been made more detailed about each person's wishes and preferences?
- 05What changes have been made to the environment and bedroom doors to support people living with dementia?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC key questions; the inspection was partly prompted by follow-up concerns about medicines management from November 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 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.
Every inspection of The Hamptons Retirement Home Ltd
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Hamptons Retirement Home Ltd →
- June 2022GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Hamptons Retirement Home Ltd →
- December 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 July 2020.
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 Walsall
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 £1,200 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.