The inspection took place on 30 August and 5 September 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. The service was last inspected in November 2014. At that inspection, the service received an overall ‘Good’ rating and at this inspection the service remained ‘Good’ overall.

Hampton House is owned by Curtis Homes Limited. It is situated in the town of Cheltenham and offers accommodation for up to 32 older people. Some of the people living at Hampton House may suffer from dementia. There were 24 people living at Hampton House at the time of the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at Hampton House who had been working at the home since 1999. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’

People received care which ensured their safety. Staff supported people in a manner which minimised risk to people. Where people had suffered an accident or injury, the service had worked with relevant health professionals to ensure they received appropriate care and treatment. There were sufficient staffing levels to ensure safe care and treatment to support people. People were kept safe by staff who had a good awareness of safeguarding policies and procedures and felt confident to raise any issues or concerns with the management team. The registered manager had carried out the relevant checks to ensure they employed suitable people at Hampton House. There were regular health and safety checks of the property to ensure it was safe for the people living at Hampton House.

People were receiving effective care and support. Staff had received appropriate training for their role. The registered manager had implemented a system to allow them to track staff training and ensure it was up to date. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals with the registered manager or deputy manager. Where required, the service was adhering to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People had sufficient to eat and drink. Care staff and kitchen staff were aware of people’s dietary requirements and worked hard to meet individual needs. The environment had been adapted to meet the needs of people living at the home. People were supported to personalise their living spaces.

The service was caring. People and their relatives spoke positively about the staff at the home. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of respect and dignity and were observed providing care which maintained peoples dignity. People had end of life care plans which reflected their needs and preferences.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. People received care which was person centred and were supported by staff who provided care which was personalised for each person. Staff on all shifts made recordings of the care provided to people. People were supported to engage in a range of activities based on their preferences and interests . There was a complaints procedure in place and where a complaint had been made, there was evidence this had been dealt with appropriately.

The service was well-led. The registered manger carried out regular quality assurance checks and audits to monitor the quality of the service provided to people. Appropriate action had been taken to address concerns identified in the audits. Staff, people and their relatives spoke positively about the registered manager. The registered manager and staff were aware of the vision and values of the service and worked hard to provide a service which was person centred for each individual.

On entering Hampton House we found the atmosphere warm and welcoming. We spoke with people living at the home, family members and a visiting professional and observed staffs understanding of the care and support needed. The people who used the service we spoke with said that there is a "nice garden and good food." People who used the service also told us that staff are "very good and capable" and "treat you as a person and with respect." We saw that the rooms were tastefully decorated with their personal belongings.

We looked at people's individual files which incorporated their personal history, likes and dislikes, care plans and risk assessments and found they encompassed the safety and well-being of people who use the service and utilised the services of external agencies when required.

People who used the service and family members told us that they knew how to raise a concern or complaint and felt confident in doing. They said if they had any issues or concerns they could "talk to the manager." There were policies and procedures in place providing guidance and all staff had received training which was identified on the training schedule.

We talked with seven people about the care and support they received. They were all very complementary about the service provided. One person said, "I am confident I couldn't have chosen anywhere as good". Other people told us, "staff try really hard, they are very accommodating" and "they have phenomenal patience". People's care and support was discussed with them every four weeks. We found their care records reflected they way in which they wished to be supported and any changes in their needs. One person told us, "I am treated with respect and dignity". Another person said, "staff are very accommodating".

We discussed with people about what they would do if they had any concerns or worries. They told us they didn't have any but would talk to staff if they did. They told us they felt safe. One person said, "I have nothing to complain about, staff treat us well". We found that systems were in place to safeguard people from harm and that staff were able to maintain their knowledge and skills to meet people's needs.

Quality assurance systems were in place to assess the quality of service provided. Surveys were sent to people annually or after a stay for respite care giving them the opportunity to give feedback about their experiences.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Hampton House on 18 and 19 November 2014.

Hampton House is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 32 older men and women with 28 people living there when we visited. People living at the home had a range of support needs including help with communication, personal care, moving about and support if they became confused or anxious. Staff support was provided at the home at all times and some people required the support of staff when away from the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were supported by a caring staff team who knew them very well and treated them as individuals. For example, staff worked with each person to identify their personal goals and then helped them to achieve them. People were encouraged to make choices and to do things for themselves as far as possible. In order to achieve this, a balance was struck between keeping people safe and supporting them to take risks and develop their independence.

People had access to a range of activities which prevented social isolation and promoted an active life. Staff helped people to stay well by seeking advice from health and social care professionals as needed. People enjoyed the meals provided, which they said were of a high quality. People also benefitted from an environment that helped them to stay safe and was pleasant to live in.

Staff felt well supported and had the training they needed to provide personalised support to each person. Staff met with their line manager to discuss their development needs and action was taken when concerns were raised. Learning took place following any incidents to prevent them happening again.

People and their relatives were encouraged to provide feedback which was used to enhance the service. They felt able to raise concerns and the issues were promptly addressed. Staff understood what they needed to do if they had concerns about the way a person was being treated. Staff were prepared to challenge and address poor care to keep people safe and happy.