You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

Newfield Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 60 older people who require nursing or personal care. The home is purpose built and accommodation is provided over two floors, accessed by a passenger lift. Part of the first floor provides intermediate care where people are supported to move back to permanent accommodation. Rehabilitation and enablement support is provided from Sheffield Teaching Hospitals physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The ground floor provides permanent accommodation. The home is situated in the Heeley/Newfield Green area of Sheffield and is close to shops and public transport.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Our last inspection at Newfield Nursing Home took place on 7 September 2015. The service was rated Good.

This inspection took place on 30 October 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the people who lived at Newfield and the staff who worked there did not know we were coming. On the day of our inspection there were 56 people using the service . The registered manager was not available on the day of our inspection as she was attending a work commitment in London.

People spoke positively about their experience of Newfield. They told us the staff were kind and they were provided with the support they needed.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if an allegation was made or they suspected abuse.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely so their health was looked after.

Some windows needed attention or replacing to improve the environment. A full audit had been undertaken and a rolling programme of repair was in place to address this.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust and ensured people’s safety was promoted.

Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people’s needs.

Staff were provided with relevant training, supervision and appraisal so they had the skills they needed to undertake their role.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The registered provider’s policies and systems supported this practice.

People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health. A varied diet was provided, which took into account dietary needs and preferences so people’s health was promoted and choices could be respected.

Staff knew people well and positive, caring relationships had been developed. People were encouraged to express their views and they were involved in decisions about their care. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted. Staff understood how to support people in a sensitive way.

A programme of activities was in place so people were provided with a range of leisure opportunities.

People said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Medicines were stored securely. Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and disposal of medicines.

The staff recruitment procedures in place promoted people�s safety.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was effective.

Parts of the environment had been identified as needing repair and a programme to implement the repairs was in place.

Staff were provided with a regular programme of training, supervision and appraisal for development and support.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had an understanding of, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were assisted to maintain their health by being provided with a balanced diet and having access to a range of healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was caring.

Staff respected people�s privacy and dignity and knew people�s preferences well.

People living at the home, and their relatives, said staff were very caring in their approach.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People�s care plans contained a range of information and had been reviewed to keep them up to date.

Staff understood people�s preferences and support needs.

People living at the home, or their relatives, were confident in reporting concerns to the registered manager and felt they would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was not always well led.

The registered provider had not undertaken some improvements to the environment which they had previously assured would be completed.

There was an experienced registered manager in post who was well liked and respected by people. Staff told us communication was good within the home.

There were quality assurance and audit processes in place to make sure the home was running safely.

The service had a full range of policies and procedures available for staff so they had access to important information. Staff meetings were held.