Archived: Newfield View

Newfield View is a ‘care home.' People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Newfield View is a large domestic style detached house located in a residential area in Sheffield. The home provides accommodation for up to eight adults who are living with a learning disability. The home has eight single bedrooms. Two bedrooms have en-suite facilities provided and one bedroom has an en-suite shower/wet room.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good.

At the time of our inspection the service did not have 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, the registered provider had employed a manager to oversee the day to day running of the service.

When we arrived at the service we were informed that the service would be changing in the near future and would become a supported living accommodation. The people using the service at the time of our inspection had been consulted about the changes and had their care needs reviewed by social workers. The manager we spoke with on the day of our inspection was the registered manager of the service which would be taking over responsibility of Newfield View as a supported living environment.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse. Staff told us they would report abuse straight away. Staff we spoke with confirmed there was enough staff to support people appropriately with their care needs. Care records included risk assessments which assisted staff in supporting people whilst minimising any risks associated with their care. People received their medicines in a safe way. However, we found that temperatures were not taken of the fridge used for storing medicines. This meant that the provided could not demonstrate that the fridge was at the correct temperature for keeping medicine items cool.

We completed a tour of the home and found the décor and furnishings to be tired, worn and in need of attention. We spoke with the team leader regarding this and we were told that the home would be modernised and new items purchased when the service changes its function to a supported living environment.

Staff training took place and staff felt supported to carry out their role. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.

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.

We found the registered provider to be compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw people were offered choice and they were respected. People had access to healthcare professionals as required and their support was sought without delay.

There was a good rapport between staff and people who used the service. Staff showed kindness and a caring manner in their interactions with people. Staff respected people and maintained their privacy and dignity.

Care plans were in place which detailed the support people required. The registered provider had a complaints procedure.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

As part of our inspection we spoke with three people who used the service, four members of staff and the registered provider/manager. We also contacted by telephone one relative and two advocates of people who used the service to obtain their views of the support provided. In addition we looked at a selection of records.

We considered all the evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service told us they felt safe in their home and that their belongings and furniture were looked after well.

People said, 'very nice [staff], they look after me I've no complaints' and 'they [staff] are very good to me. I am happy.'

We found risk assessments had been undertaken to identify any potential risk and the actions required to manage the risk. This meant that people were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their lives.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded.

The service had completed enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, formerly known as Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks for all staff working at the home. This helped to protect people who were receiving a service.

Is the service effective?

Relatives and advocates we spoke with told us that in the main care workers were really good, supported their loved ones and had a good relationship with them. One relative said, 'I couldn't wish for [family member] to be anywhere better, they're amazing.' Another relative said, 'most of the staff really good but there are a couple that seem indifferent.'

People's health and care needs were assessed on a regular basis. We saw people who used the service and their relatives had been involved in writing plans of care and these were reviewed and updated regularly.

We found people were provided with nutritious food. Some people required specialised diets for health or personal reasons and these were provided.

We found newly employed staff were provided with an induction. The induction covered many areas including all mandatory training and also additional specialised training in such topics as dementia and medication administration.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service told us care workers were kind, patient, cheerful, polite and caring. Comments included, 'staff help me with personal care and encourage me to be as independent as possible,' 'they're good people and do everything they need to' and 'the staff here are my family.'

Relatives told us, 'we visit at different times of day and we always find [family member] clean and well looked after. The care they give is second to none' and 'the staff have a lot of common sense and are caring and kind.'

Is the service responsive?

Relatives said they could speak to the manager or staff at the home if they had a concern or a complaint. Relatives said they had a good relationship with the staff and manager. One relative said, 'they [staff] really listen to us. Over the years they have sorted out issues and problems and they always follow things through.'

Is the service well-led?

Satisfaction surveys and review meetings had been used to enable people to share their views on the service provided. This helped the provider to assess if people were receiving the care and support they needed. We found evidence to confirm people had been listened to and changes made to improve their care and support package.

At this inspection we found care records had been reviewed and updated so there was a full and accurate record of the care and support provided to people. We found the care records were regularly audited by the home manager.

People who we spoke with told us that they were very happy living at the home. Their comments included, "It's my home and everything is good," "I'm very happy here and have nothing to grumble about" and "Everything is great, the staff are very kind."

We found people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

We found that care and support was offered appropriately to people and that staff were skilled, in recognising the diversity, values and human rights of people who used the service.

People who used the service told us they were happy living at the home. Their comments included, "It's nice here" and "I like living here. I like the staff." There were various activities on offer for people living at the home.

Medication records checked were up to date and medication was stored securely.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place to ensure that staff were appropriately employed.

All of the people we spoke with said they had no complaints or concerns about the home.

People were not protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were not maintained.