You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Newhaven Residential Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 28 March 2017

We inspected Newhaven Residential Home on 22 February 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. The service provides care and support for up to 25 people. When we undertook our inspection there were 22 people living at the home.

People living at the home were mainly older people. Some people required more assistance because of physical illnesses or because they had problems coping with everyday tasks.

There was 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.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. At the time of our inspection there was no one subject to such an authorisation.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in a consistent way through the use of their care plans. People were involved in the planning of their care, but many did not wish to see their care plans. The information and guidance provided to staff in the care plans was clear. Risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed, but plans were not put in place to minimise risk in order to keep people safe. The care plans were all being reviewed as a new format was being introduced.

People had been consulted about the development of the home and quality checks had been completed to ensure the home could meet people’s requirements. However, there was little analysis of quality checks. Where this had taken place the lessons to be learnt had been passed on to staff through staff meetings.

We found that there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people using the service. The provider had taken into consideration the complex needs of each person to ensure their needs could be met through a 24 hour period.

People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff in the home took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to the staff in the home. The staff on duty knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks. Meals could be taken in a dining room, sitting rooms or people’s own bedrooms. Staff encouraged people to eat their meals and gave assistance to those that required it. However, there were no menus on display so people could not remind themselves of the choices they had made.

The provider used safe systems when new staff were recruited. All new staff completed training before working in the home. On-going training and support was available for all staff.

There had been some refurbishment and renewal of some floor coverings and furniture since our last inspection. There was a system in place to ensure the refurbishment programme continued.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 28 March 2017

The service was safe.

Checks were made to ensure the home was a safe place to live.

Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs.

Staff in the home knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risk assessments were up to date and staff ensured people were protected from harm.

Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 28 March 2017

The service was effective.

Staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing. However, menus were not on display, so people could not be reminded of their choices.

Staff received suitable training and support to enable them to do their job.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the key requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were understood by staff and people’s legal rights protected.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 March 2017

The service was caring.

People were relaxed in the company of staff and told us staff were approachable.

People’s needs and wishes were respected by staff.

Staff ensured people’s dignity was maintained at all times.

Staff respected people’s needs to maintain as much independence as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care was planned and reviewed on a regular basis with them. The care plans explored the needs of people and how other agencies could help them.

Activities were planned and people told us how staff helped them spend their time.

People knew how to make concerns known and felt assured anything raised would be investigated.

Well-led

Good

Updated 28 March 2017

The service was well-led.

An analysis of audits was undertaken to measure the delivery of care, treatment and support given to people against current guidance.

People’s opinions were sought on the services provided and they felt those opinions were valued when asked.

Any lessons to be learnt from audits were passed on to staff at meetings and written notes to each individual staff member.