You are here

Newnton House Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 July 2018

This inspection took place on 27 June 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a service for adult men who may be out during the day, we needed to be sure that someone would be in. At our previous inspection in March 2017 we rated this service “Requires Improvement”. We found two breaches of regulations with regards to safe care and treatment, and person-centred care. We also made a recommendation about the home recording verbal complaints. We found that the provider had taken satisfactory actions in response to the last inspection report.

Newnton House 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. Newnton House provides care and support for up to 9 people with mental health needs, many of whom have a forensic history and learning disabilities. The service aims to provide a short-term service for people before they are able to live more independently. At the time of our inspection there were eight men using the service. The service is based in a large house in Hackney, which contains nine bedrooms, three bathrooms, a large lounge and activities room, a kitchen and dining area and a communal garden. There was a staff office within the building and a staff sleeping in room.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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 told us they felt safe with staff and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew how to safeguard people against harm and abuse. People’s risk assessments were completed, regularly reviewed and gave sufficient information to staff on how to provide safe care. Staff kept detailed records of people’s accidents and incidents. Staff wore appropriate protection equipment to prevent the risk of spread of infection. Medicines were stored and administered safely. The home environment was clean.

Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA and DoLS is legislation protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves or whom the state has decided need to be deprived of their liberty in their own best interests. We saw people were able to choose what they ate and drank. People told us they enjoyed the food. The home was well decorated and adapted to meet their needs of the people.

People told us that they were well treated and the staff were caring. We found that care records were in place which included information about how to meet a person’s individual and assessed needs. People’s cultural and religious needs were respected when planning and delivering care. Discussions with staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service. People had access to a wide variety of activities.

The service had not recorded exploring people’s wishes for end of life care. We have made a recommendation about involving people in decisions about their end of life care.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and we found that complaints were investigated and where possible resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.

Staff told us the service had an open and inclusive atmosphere and the registered manager was approachable and listened to concerns

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 July 2018

The service was safe. Staff were able to explain to us what constituted abuse and the action they would take to escalate concerns.

Risk assessments were in place which set out how to manage and reduce the risks people faced.

Medicines were recorded and administered safely.

Staff were recruited appropriately and adequate numbers were on duty to meet people’s needs.

People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 July 2018

The service was effective. Staff undertook regular training. Staff received regular supervision and appraisals.

The provider meet the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) to help ensure people’s rights were protected. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts and eat nutritious meals that met their individual dietary needs.

People’s health and support needs were assessed and appropriately reflected in care records. People were supported to maintain good health and to access health care services and professionals when they needed them.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 July 2018

The service was caring. People and their relatives told us that they were well treated and the staff were caring. People could make choices about how they wanted to be supported and staff listened to what they had to say.

People were treated with respect and the staff understood how to provide care in a dignified manner and respected people’s right to privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 July 2018

The service was responsive. People’s needs were assessed and care plans to meet their needs were developed and reviewed with their involvement. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s individual needs and preferences.

People had opportunities to engage in a range of social events and activities.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about the home and felt confident their concerns would be dealt with appropriately.

The service had an end of life policy for people who used the service. However the service did not explore end of life wishes during the initial needs assessment and care planning stages.

People’s cultural needs were respected. Most staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 July 2018

The service was well-led. The service had a registered manager in place. Staff told us they found the registered manager to be approachable.

People and health and social care professionals told us that the service was well run and they received good care.

The service had various quality assurance and monitoring systems in place.