SENSE - Newton Court

We found the following examples of good practice.

A social media group chat was set up, there was video calling, socially distanced garden visits, telephone calls and emails used to support people to keep in contact with friends and family during visiting restrictions. Individual risk assessments were also created and followed to support people to socially distance visit their relatives outside of the home.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

At the last inspection, which took place in September 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our visit. 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 manager was on long term leave at the time of our visit and a senior staff member was acting as manager.

Staff knew how to respond to possible abuse and how to reduce risk of harm to people. There were usually enough staff who had been recruited properly to make sure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were stored and administered safely.

People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles. Staff members understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received a choice of meals, which they liked, and staff supported them to eat and drink. They were referred to health care professionals as needed and staff followed the advice professionals gave them.

Staff were caring, kind and treated people with respect. People were listened to and were involved in their care and what they did on a day to day basis. People’s right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.

People’s personal and health care needs were met and care records guided staff in how to do this. There was a variety of activities for people to do and take part in during the day, and people had enough social stimulation. A complaints procedure was in place and people knew who to speak with if they had concerns.

Staff worked well together to support people to receive the care they needed. The provider’s monitoring process looked at systems throughout the home, identified issues and staff took the appropriate action to resolve these.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

People who used the service had complex communication needs s we were unable to effectively listen to their views. However, as part of this inspection, we observed two people who used the service, spoke with two family members of people who use the service, the registered manager and two members of care staff. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included two care plans, daily records, policies and procedures, staff records and quality assurance monitoring records.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

Family members of people who used the service told us that they were satisfied with how their relatives' support and care needs had been safely met. They also told us that they felt satisfied that their relative was safe living at the care home.

Health and safety risk assessments had been carried out and measures were in place to minimise these, to keep people safe.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care services. While no applications had needed to be submitted, policies and procedures were in place and under review. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

People were safely supported to take their medication as prescribed. Minor improvements were needed to ensure that people continued to be safely supported with their prescribed medication. We expect the provider to manage these suggested improvements.

There were a sufficient number of trained and competent members of staff employed to provide people with safe and appropriate care as planned.

Is the service effective?

People's choices and decisions about their support and care were respected and valued. Family members, who represented their relative who used the service, were satisfied with the how their relatives' support and care needs were being met.

Procedures were in place to ensure that where people may not have had the mental capacity to understand complex information, their health and social care needs would be met in their best interests.

We saw people who used the service were supported to engage in meaningful activities. When we visited to carry out our inspection on 03 June 2014, most of the people had spent their day at a resource centre. This was a place where they were able to engage in learning and practical skills programmes. They were also provided with opportunities to take part in exercise programmes, to effectively keep them well.

Is the service caring?

We observed that members of staff treated people who used the service in a kind and attentive way. People's family members told us that their relative was treated well by kind and caring members of staff.

People who we observed indicated that they positively responded to members of staff. This included becoming settled with showing signs of being content.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs, choices and personal preferences had been assessed and planned for. Members of staff demonstrated to us how they respected people's choices and decisions about their support and care.

People's individual social care needs were responded to. People were supported to engage in meaningful social and recreational activities. They were also supported to maintain contact with their friends and family members, when this support was needed.

Is the service well-led?

There were monitoring and reviewing systems in place to ensure that people were provided with safe and appropriate care.

Members of staff told us that they had the training and support to safely do their job, which they said they enjoyed.

Members of staff and family members of people, who used the service, were provided with opportunities to make suggestions and comments to improve the quality of people's support and care.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

During our visit of 08 May 2013 we reviewed five care plans that showed how people were fully included in discussions about how they had chosen to be assisted and what their goals for the future were. We looked at care plans that clearly explained how a person preferred to be supported.

We observed the manner of people living in the home when they were speaking with members of staff. During this visit people we saw were smiling, talking in a relaxed and confident way with staff and making decisions about their day. This showed us that people living in the home were confident and could discuss matters with staff.

Family members we spoke with all said that the home was really good and staff were wonderful and another person told us. 'It is a home from home'.

We saw forms that showed that a quality audit was regularly undertaken by the organisation to monitor the quality of the service that was being provided.

People's risk assessments that we reviewed demonstrated to us that the risks to people, such as transport, eating or falls had been assessed and that these assessments had been reviewed regularly according to the level of risk.

All of the staff who we spoke with were able to describe the safeguarding of vulnerable adults to us and who any potential abuse could be reported to. All staff felt that they could approach the manager and were confident that their concerns would be acted upon.

We reviewed staff recruitment files and found that all staff had two satisfactory references with any employment gaps explained, photographic identity and enhanced criminal record bureau checks completed before they commenced employment with the service.

From the records that we reviewed we saw that the provider had completed all necessary statutory gas and electrical inspections, including those for the home's transport lifting equipment. Records were held securely and for the appropriate amount of time.