We carried out a review of the data available to us about Newland House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Newland House, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection in June 2017 we identified medicines were not always managed safely and that the records relating to the administration of medicines were not always consistently completed. We also found that systems for monitoring people's conditions where people had been assessed as at risk were not always effective. This was a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We therefore asked the provider to submit an action plan telling us how they were going to address these concerns. We received the action plan within the timescales given that showed how the improvements had been made.
At this inspection we found the provider addressed the above concerns and the service improved to Good in Safe and Well-led domains and remained Good in Effective, Caring and Responsive. As a result, the service was rated Good overall.
The service was safe. People told us they were safe and staff knew how to identify, report and escalate safeguarding concerns. People’s files contained risk assessments relating to people’s well-being and any individual health conditions. Where an area of risk had been identified, a management plan was in place to guide how to keep the person safe. People were supported by sufficient number of safely recruited staff. Staff received good support and complimented the provision of training. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.
There was a registered manager running the service who started working at the service just before our last inspection in June 2017. 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. The provider’s quality assurance systems had improved. The registered manager analysed the audits and used the information to inform an ongoing action plan to ensure continuous improvement.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s rights to make own decisions were respected and we found the records surrounding people’s capacity improved and were in line with the Act.
People's care plans were up to date, current and gave clear guidance to staff on how people wished to be supported. People were supported to maintain a good nutrition and were offered suitable diet that met their dietary preferences.
People knew how to complain the complaints and concerns were managed appropriately. When required, the service worked with other professionals to ensure people had a comfortable, dignified and pain free death.
The team was caring and we found people’s individual needs, including equality and diversity needs were considered and respected. People’s dignity, privacy and confidentiality were maintained.
At our last inspection in June 2015 the service was rated Good overall and Good in each of five domains. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good for being effective, caring and responsive. We however identified concerns around medicines, risk management and therefore the service was not consistently well-led.
Throughout our inspection the atmosphere at the service was open and friendly. Staff displayed a transparent and honest culture and they were committed to deliver good service to people.
There was a new manager in post who was registering with the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager. 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 felt safe living at Newland House. People’s relatives told us they felt the service was safe. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe from harm and knew how to raise safeguarding concerns. People were supported by sufficient staff to keep them safe and the provider ensured safe recruitment practices were followed. Staff training was ongoing and the records confirmed staff received supervisions and probationary reviews.
Risks to people’s well-being such falls, mobility, malnutrition, moving and handling or skin damage were identified and recorded. We however found there was not always evidence available that people were protected from a risk of harm. We also found concerns around medicines management.
People and their relatives complimented the compassionate nature of staff. On the day of our inspection we saw examples of kind and caring interactions that demonstrated staff knew people well. People’s dignity, privacy and confidentiality were respected. People were offered a range of activities to join if they wished. There was a new activities co-ordinator in post and they planned to further enhance opportunities for people to enjoy meaningful activities.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported to maintain good health and access health professionals. Staff ensured people were encouraged to meet their nutritional needs and people complimented the food.
People were assessed prior to coming to live at Newland House. People’s care files gave details of the level of support required and people’s wishes and choices. The service responded to people’s changing needs. People and their families were involved in their care planning and reviews.
Provider used various audits to monitor the quality of the service. Whilst some of the audits were effective we found a lack of consistency in how well the service was led. The provider used learning from accidents and incidents to review their practices and to improve the experience for people. The management were open and acknowledged that there were areas that needed addressing. They welcomed our inspection and were open to our feedback. The new manager demonstrated commitment and enthusiasm to further improve the service.
We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
We inspected Newland House on 3 June 2015. Newland House provides residential care for older people over the age of 65, some are living with dementia. The home offers a service for up to 30 people. At the time of our visit 25 people were using the service. This was an unannounced inspection.
We last inspected in May 2013 and found the service was meeting all of the required standards.
There was not a registered manager in post on the day of our inspection. A new manager had been employed by the provider and they had started the process to register with the Care Quality Commission. They were supported by the former registered manager, who was now working as a quality support manager and a regional manager. 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 were supported and cared for by kind, caring and compassionate care workers. Care workers knew the people they cared for and what was important to them. Care workers supported people to stay as independent as possible.
People were supported with their healthcare needs. People had access to food and drink and were supported by care staff with appointments. Healthcare professionals were working in the home and providing support to ensure people were protected from the risk of falls.
People spoke positively about their lives in the home. There were activities for people and they were supported to follow their interests and maintain relationships which were important to them.
Care workers had the skills they needed to meet people's needs. Care workers knew how to assist and reassure people before they became anxious. Care workers were supported by a strong management team and could access training and qualifications to develop their skills.
Care workers had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people did not have the capacity to make specific decisions, care workers ensured people's rights were protected. The manager had knowledge of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and ensured where people were deprived of their liberty this was carried out in the least restrictive way.
People, their visitors and staff spoke positively about the manager and the quality support manager. The manager was responsive to people's needs and concerns and used people's views to make improvements to the service.
The manager had support from the provider and had effective systems to monitor and improve the quality of care people at the home received. Care workers had the information they needed to meet people's needs and were encouraged to suggest improvements to the service. Staff were supported to make decisions and were aware of the caring culture the provider was trying to promote.
We spoke with six of the 25 people who used the service. Everyone we spoke with was complimentary of the service they received. One person told us, 'I love it here, I feel looked after', and, 'I liked this one (home), when I was looking around, I knew I was going to be alright'. Another person told us, 'I feel very well looked after, staff are really good'. Another person told us, 'staff are wonderful and the home is marvellous'.
The home was clean on the day of our visit, and had processes in place to maintain a clean environment. We saw that all areas of the home was clean and tidy with no apparent odours.
All care workers had completed mandatory training. The homes training matrix showed us, and care workers told us, that there were sufficient skilled and experienced care workers on duty to assist for people appropriately at all times.
One person told us, 'I feel safe and well, I have no concerns, if I do I'll tell the staff or the manager'.
The home had a warm and homely atmosphere and was clean throughout. The main lounge had comfortable easy chairs where people socialised in the day time. There was a smaller lounge with an information board which displayed daily lunch and supper menus and various activities. On a nearby coffee table there were books containing thank you cards and photographs of recent events. A copy of the service user guide was available which contained the complaints procedure.
We asked people what they did in the daytime. Several people spoke with us about the range of activities such as, trips out, piano sing along's, skittles and bingo. One person commented about the garden and said how nice it was to sit out in the sunshine.
The home had its own hairdressing salon where ladies and gentlemen could have their hair done or receive a manicure. The hairdresser said they were open twice a week. On the day of our visit we observed many ladies had visited the salon and complimented each other on their hairstyles. One person said, "it does give you a boost having your hair done".
A senior member of staff told us how they encouraged people to give their views on the
running of the home through informal discussions with staff. The home also held a
resident's and relatives meeting where people could give their views. We saw from the minutes of these meetings that any actions were followed up. Some examples of these were, the new raised flower beds in the garden and there was now a resident chicken after people talked about how they used to rear chickens. Relatives had suggested a way of brightening up the main wall of the downstairs corridor which now displayed bright pictures on canvases which people who lived in the home had painted.