The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Newholme

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Bushy Cross Lane, Ruishton, Taunton, Somerset, TA3 5JT (01823) 442298

Provided and run by:
Somerset County Council - Specialist Public Health Nursing

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

28 August 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 28 August 2015 and was unannounced.

The service provides accommodation and support for up to eight adults with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection there were eight people living in the home with complex care and communication needs. Most of the people had severe learning and physical disabilities including mobility needs. People had limited or no verbal communication skills and we were only able to engage in short conversations with two of the people. People required staff support with all of their personal care needs and needed two staff to support them when they went out into the community.

The service had a 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.

We were unable to communicate verbally with most of the people therefore we relied on our observations of care and our conversations with people’s relatives and staff to help us understand their experiences.

People received care and support in line with their individual care plans. They appeared very happy and comfortable with the staff who were supporting them. We observed people responded positively when staff approached them with smiles and happy facial expressions. One person said “I like it here very much”. Relatives told us they were very happy with the care provided. One person’s relative said “Staff are very caring and always look after [their relative] very well”. Another person’s relative told us “The manager is fantastic and they all seem to work together as a very good team”.

We observed staff treated people in the home with kindness, dignity and respect. The staff were exceptionally friendly and considerate and supported people and their colleagues extremely well.

People’s relatives said they were always made very welcome and were encouraged to visit the home as often as they wished. They said the service was very good at keeping them informed and involving them in decisions about their relatives care.

Individual communication profiles were available to help staff understand the non-verbal ways in which people expressed their preferences. We observed staff always checked with people before providing care or support and then acted on people’s choices. Where people lacked the mental capacity to make certain decisions about their care and welfare the service knew how to protect people’s rights.

There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s complex needs and to care for them safely. People were engaged in a variety of activities within the home and in the community and there were usually sufficient numbers of staff to support people to go out most days of the week. This ensured people experienced a good quality of life.

Staff received appropriate training to support people’s mental and physical health needs. People received their medicines safely and were supported by a range of external health and social care professionals.

The service’s quality monitoring systems enabled the service to maintain high standards of care and to promote continuing service improvements.

31 October 2013

During a routine inspection

There were seven people with complex learning disabilities living in the home at the time of our inspection. We observed the care provided and engaged in limited verbal and non-verbal communication with people where possible. We spoke with three members of staff and a visiting professional person.

One visiting professional person said 'staff were very caring' and 'there's a lovely homely atmosphere here'. We saw evidence of involvement of other professional healthcare staff such as speech and language therapists and occupational therapists. We saw that compliments were recorded, comments about staff included 'skilful interactions and positive involvement with Newholme residents' and 'excellent staff'.

When people did not have capacity to make decisions, we saw that their rights were protected because the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed.

We made observations of supportive interactions between staff and people who used the service. For example, two people were being supported to take part in separate sensory activities. One person responded with smiles when staff spoke with them. Another person was in the kitchen with staff whilst breakfast was being prepared and engaged in the activity of choosing their meal.

We saw that staff were provided with specialist training such as PEG feeds, epilepsy and rescue medication administration. The quality of care was monitored via questionnaires which checked staffs understanding, supervisions and observations. Staff we spoke with said that training was provided where necessary to meet people's needs.

20 March 2013

During a routine inspection

There were eight people living in this home when it was inspected by us. We made some non verbal contact with most of the people in the home, met a visiting professional and spoke with three members of staff. We also made our own observations throughout the visit.

People's accommodation was personalised, clean and tidy. From our observations staff treated people as individuals and included them in decisions or changes which affected their daily lives. We observed staff working with people in a kind and respectful way.

Staff had received safe guarding training and guidance which enabled them to tell us what action they would take if they saw anything which might affect the well-being of the person using the service.

The number of staff on duty on the day we inspection were low compared to the needs of the people using the service and there appeared to be little flexibility to cover any unexpected events.

The records held by the service were complete and kept up to date. This helped and supported staff to maintain the comfort and wellbeing of people using the service.

Systems were in place for monitoring the service. External quality audits of the service were regularly carried out to help ensure people using the service lived in a safe, well run home.

Having assessed the available evidence, we considered the service demonstrated how it met the safety and welfare needs of the people using the service.