We carried out a review of the data available to us about Newington Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Newington Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice:
People that were able to follow social distancing guidance were supported to have visits from their relatives through a pre booked timed system. Visits took place outside and were supported by care staff. The registered manager informed us after the inspection that they offered support with video calling for people to maintain links with relatives who could not visit.
The registered manager provided personal protective equipment (PPE) to visitors and residents.
Staff and people were supported with regular testing for COVID-19
Staff were supported with regular breaks. The provider had arranged for a counselling service which was available to staff as they needed it.
There were risk assessments in place for staff or people who fell into high risk groups. The registered manager had planned how to manage an outbreak of COVID-19 in the home, Including zoning of rooms and areas.
Newington Court 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.
Newington Court provides accommodation, residential and nursing care for up to 58 older people. The main building has three floors and accommodates people who have nursing care on the ground floor and top floor. The middle floor has a separate 'Memory Lane Unit' for people who live with dementia and nursing care needs. There is a separate annex called Falcon Place which provides residential care. The home has a garden and courtyard areas available for all of the people. On the day of our inspection, there were 55 people living at the service. People had a variety of complex needs including people with mental health and physical health needs and people living with dementia. Some people had limited mobility and some people received care in bed.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ overall, with the domains of Safe and Responsive requiring improvement. We identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The breach was in relation to failing to provide care and treatment that met people’s needs and preferences. We also made three recommendations in relation to good practice. Namely, that the provider follows good practice guidance assesses and reviews the whole environment to ensure that it is suitable for all people living with dementia; that the provider and registered manager make further improvements to ensure that all staff had sufficient checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people who needed safeguarding from harm and that the registered manager and provider reassess and reviews practice in relation to maintaining confidentiality. We asked the provider to take action.
We received an action plan from the provider following the inspection, which detailed what action they had taken to address the issues.
At this inspection we found that the provider had made improvements to the service.
People gave us positive feedback about the service and told us they received safe, effective, caring, responsive care.
People’s safety had been appropriately assessed and monitored. Each person’s care plan contained individual risk assessments in which risks to their safety were identified.
The registered manager demonstrated that they had a good understanding of their role and responsibilities in relation to notifying CQC about important events such as injuries, safeguarding concerns and deaths. The registered manager had informed CQC about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations that had been approved.
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and supported people to make choices. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been made to the local authority by the registered manager.
Staff had a good understanding of what their roles and responsibilities were in preventing abuse. The safeguarding policy gave staff all of the information they needed to report safeguarding concerns to external agencies.
People’s care was person centred. Care plans detailed people’s important information such as their life history, personal history and informed staff of the care people required to meet their assessed needs.
Staff were cheerful, kind and patient in their approach and had a good rapport with people. The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.
Medicines had been well managed, stored securely and records showed that medicines had been administered as they had been prescribed.
People received medical assistance from healthcare professionals when they needed it. Staff knew people well and recognised when people were not acting in their usual manner.
Meals and mealtimes promoted people’s wellbeing, meal times were relaxed and people were given choices.
People were encouraged to take part in activities that they enjoyed. People were supported to be as independent as possible.
People were supported to maintain their relationships with people who mattered to them. Relatives and visitors were welcomed at the service at any reasonable time and were complimentary about the care their family member’s received.
People’s views and experiences were sought through surveys and through meetings. People were listened to. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and complaints.
The provider followed safe recruitment practice. Essential documentation was in place for employed staff.
There were suitable numbers of staff deployed on shift to meet people’s assessed needs.
Staff had attended training they needed, training was on going. Staff received supervision and said they were supported in their role.
There were quality assurance systems in place. The registered manager and provider carried out regular checks on the home. Action plans were put in place and completed quickly. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager.
The premises were well maintained, clean and tidy. The home smelled fresh. Decoration of the service followed good practice guidelines for supporting people who live with dementia. There were signs to direct people to different areas of the service such as to the dining area, lounge and garden area.
Newington Court provides accommodation, residential and nursing care for up to 58 older people. The main building has three floors and accommodates people who have nursing care on the ground floor and top floor. The middle floor has a separate 'Memory Lane Unit' for people who live with dementia and nursing care needs. There is a separate annex called Falcon Place which provides residential care. The home has a garden and courtyard areas available for all of the people. On the day of our inspection, there were 54 people living at the home. People had a variety of complex needs including people with mental health and physical health needs and people living with dementia. Some people had limited mobility and some people received care in bed.
The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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.
At our previous inspection on 23 May 2016, we identified five breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The breaches were in relation to person centred care, good governance, failure to ensure enough staff were deployed on shift to meet people's needs, failing to handle and respond to complaints and recruitment procedures. We asked the provider to take action.
We received an action plan on 24 August 2016 from the provider following the inspection, which detailed what action they had taken to address the breaches. They told us that they would meet the breaches by November 2016.
At this inspection we found that the provider had made improvements to the service.
People gave us positive feedback about the home and told us they received safe, effective, caring, responsive care.
People’s care was not always person centred. Care plans did not always detail people’s important information such as their life history, personal history and did not always list the care people required to meet their assessed needs.
The provider did not always follow safe recruitment practice. Essential documentation was in place for employed staff. Gaps in employment history had been explored for five out of six staff to check staff suitability for their role for. We made a recommendation about this.
Decoration of the home did not follow good practice guidelines for supporting people who live with dementia. The bathroom and toilet doors on the first floor were the only ones with dementia friendly decoration. There were no signs to direct people to different areas of the home such as to the dining area, lounge and garden. We made a recommendation about this.
We observed one conversation that was held in a lounge area between two staff members. Whilst confidential information was not discussed in this open environment, personal information about the person’s health was. We made a recommendation about this.
Staff had attended training they needed, training was on going. Staff received supervision and said they were supported in their role.
People’s safety had been appropriately assessed and monitored. Each person’s care plan contained individual risk assessments in which risks to their safety were identified.
Medicines had been generally well managed, stored securely and records showed that medicines had been administered as they had been prescribed.
The registered manager demonstrated that they had a good understanding of their role and responsibilities in relation to notifying CQC about important events such as injuries, safeguarding concerns and deaths. The registered manager had informed CQC about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations that had been approved.
Staff had a good understanding of what their roles and responsibilities were in preventing abuse. The safeguarding policy gave staff all of the information they needed to report safeguarding concerns to external agencies.
There were suitable numbers of staff deployed on shift to meet people’s assessed needs.
The premises were well maintained, clean and tidy. The home smelled fresh.
Meals and mealtimes promoted people’s wellbeing, meal times were relaxed and people were given choices.
Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and supported people to make choices. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been made to the local authority by the registered manager.
People received medical assistance from healthcare professionals when they needed it. Staff knew people well and recognised when people were not acting in their usual manner.
People were supported to maintain their relationships with people who mattered to them. Relatives and visitors were welcomed at the service at any reasonable time and were complimentary about the care their family member’s received.
Staff were cheerful, kind and patient in their approach and had a good rapport with people. The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed. Staff treated people with dignity and respect.
People were encouraged to take part in activities that they enjoyed. People were supported to be as independent as possible.
People’s views and experiences were sought through surveys and through meetings. People were listened to. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and complaints.
There were quality assurance systems in place. The registered manager and provider carried out regular checks on the home. Action plans were put in place and completed quickly. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager.
We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
At our previous inspection on 06 October 2015 we identified five breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The breaches were in relation to person centred care, failure to manage medicines effectively, treating people with dignity and respect, good governance, staff training, failure to ensure enough staff were deployed on shift to meet people’s needs and recruitment procedures. We took enforcement action and issued two warning notices in relation to Regulation 18. The provider had failed to deploy sufficient numbers of staff and staff had not received appropriate training. Regulation 17, Good governance. The provider had failed to operate effective systems and processes to monitor and improve the quality and safety of services and failed to maintain accurate and complete records. The provider and registered manager were required to meet the requirements of the warning notices by the 8 December 2016.
The provider sent us an action plan on 18 March 2016 which stated that they would comply with the remaining breaches of regulations by May 2016.
Newington Court provides accommodation, residential and nursing care for up to 58 older people. The main building has three floors and accommodates people who have nursing care on the ground floor and top floor. The middle floor has a separate ‘Memory Lane Unit’ for people who live with dementia and nursing care needs. There is a separate annex called Falcon Place which provides residential care. The home has a garden and courtyard areas available for all of the people. On the day of our inspection there were 55 people living at the home. People had a variety of complex needs including people with mental health and physical health needs and people living with dementia. Some people had limited mobility and some people received care in bed.
The service did not have a registered manager in place. The registered manager left on 01 April 2016. The provider was in the process of recruiting a new 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.
At this inspection we found that improvements had been made to the service however further improvement were required. The provider had met some of the actions they told us they would take within the timescales they had given us but not all of them. As a result, they were breaching regulations relating to fundamental standards of care.
We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about the home. Some people were happy with their care and support, others were not.
Effective recruitment procedures were not in place to ensure that potential staff employed were of good character and had the skills and experience needed to carry out their roles.
There were not enough staff deployed in all areas of the home to ensure that people received care and support in an effective and timely manner, staffing levels had been increased in one area of the home.
People’s care needs were not always met. People did not always receive the care and support that they wanted, such as regular baths, assistance with their continence needs when they needed it and healthcare advice had not always been followed. Some People were not provided with meaningful activities.
People’s decisions and choices were not always respected, one person had said no to a drink, yet a staff member continued to try and make the person have a drink.
Feedback from health and social care professionals had not always been acted on to support people with communicating effectively.
People were offered choices of food at each meal time. Staff plated up each option so that people could make an informed choice about what the food was. Staff did not do this with the dessert options. We made a recommendation about this.
People and their relatives knew who to talk to if they were unhappy about the service; however the provider had not always dealt with people’s complaints appropriately.
Records relating to people’s care and management records were not securely kept.
People’s safety had been appropriately assessed and monitored. Each person’s care plan contained individual risk assessments in which risks to their safety were identified.
Staff were careful to protect people’s privacy and dignity and people told us they were treated with dignity and respect, for example staff made sure that doors were closed when personal care was given.
Medicines administered were adequately administered, stored and recorded to ensure that people received their medicines in a safe manner.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been made to the local authority and had been approved.
People were supported and helped to maintain their health and to access health services when they needed them.
Staff told us that the home was well run. Staff were positive about the support they received from the management team. They felt they could raise concerns and they would be listened to.
There were effective quality assurance systems and the management team carried out regular checks on the home to make sure people received a good service.
Communication between staff within the home was good. They were made aware of significant events and any changes in people’s behaviour.
We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
The inspection was carried out on 06 October 2015. Our inspection was unannounced.
Newington Court provides accommodation, residential and nursing care for up to 58 older people. The main building has three floors and accommodates people who have nursing care on the ground floor and top floor. The middle floor has a separate ‘Memory Lane Unit’ for people who live with dementia and nursing care needs. There is a separate annex called Falcon Place which provides residential care. The home has a garden and courtyard areas available for all of the people. On the day of our inspection there were 49 people living at the home. People had a variety of complex needs including people with mental health and physical health needs and people living with dementia. Some people had limited mobility and some people received care in bed.
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.
People gave us positive feedback about the home. People felt safe and well supported and the food was good.
Effective recruitment procedures were not in place to ensure that potential staff employed were of good character and had the skills and experience needed to carry out their roles.
There were not enough staff deployed to ensure that people received care and support in an effective and timely manner. This added to some people’s distress and anxiety when their behaviour was ignored.
Topical medicines administered were not adequately recorded to ensure that people received them in a safe and effective manner.
The training staff received did not give them the skills to support people effectively. For example, care staff administered prescribed creams but had not received training to do so.
People were not always treated with dignity and respect or provided with personalised care. Staff were not responsive to people’s needs or choices. People were not provided with meaningful activities.
Effective systems were not in place to enable the provider to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Records were not always accurate and complete.
Staff knew and understood how to protect people from abuse and harm and keep them safe. The home had a safeguarding policy in place which listed staff’s roles and responsibilities.
People’s safety had been appropriately assessed and monitored. Each person’s care plan contained individual risk assessments in which risks to their safety were identified, such as falls, mobility and skin integrity. Control measures to mitigate such risks were in place.
The home was suitably decorated. The home was adequately heated and was clean.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications had been made to the local authority and had been approved.
People had choices of food at each meal time. People were offered more food if they wanted it and people that did not want to eat what had been cooked were offered alternatives. People with specialist diets had been catered for. The cook had a good understanding of how to fortify foods with extra calories for people at risk of malnutrition.
People were supported and helped to maintain their health and to access health services when they needed them.
People and their relatives knew who to talk to if they were unhappy about the service.
Relatives and staff told us that the home was well run. Staff were positive about the support they received from the senior managers within the organisation. They felt they could raise concerns and they would be listened to.
Communication between staff within the home was good. They were made aware of significant events and any changes in people’s behaviour. Handovers between staff going off shift and those coming on shift were documented.
We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
The report is based on our observations during the inspection, we spent time observing care and support in communal areas of the home. We spent time talking with three people who used the service, three staff who worked in the home, and reviewing records. We also talked with the manager, deputy manager and regional director.
During this inspection we set out to answer our one key question; is the service safe?
Below is a summary of what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
We found that there was enough staff to meet the needs of people who lived in the home. People told us that they were well cared for and that their needs were met by kind and caring staff. Call bells were answered promptly.
Staff told us that they felt well supported and there was always plenty of staff on shift. We checked records which confirmed this.
The inspector gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.
Is the service safe?
People were protected from the risk of harm because steps had been taken to safeguard them. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. People told us that they felt safe.
Is the service effective?
We saw that the care that was delivered reflected people's assessed needs. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. We saw that people's needs were met because appropriate assessments had been carried out and care was planned and delivered effectively. Care plans were reviewed monthly and were therefore relevant and up to date.
Is the service caring?
People were cared for by staff who were kind and attentive. One person who lived at the home told us 'The staff are good at communicating and good at what they do'. Another person told us that staff take time to talk to them.
Is the service responsive?
We found that people were given opportunities to express their views and they told us that they felt they would be listened to if they made requests. We saw that actions had been taken when people had expressed preferences and made requests.
We found that the service had not responded to one person's changing needs which put staff and other people who lived in the home at risk. We have asked the owner to make improvements and meet the requirements of the law in relation to safeguarding the health, safety and welfare of people living in the home and staff.
Is the service well led?
Staff we spoke with told us that the manager at the home was approachable and they felt they were supported to do their jobs. People who lived in the home told us 'Out of all the homes I have lived in this is the best one'. There were appropriate systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure that any issues detected were dealt with in a timely manner.
We found that people were of different views about living in the home. Most of course said they would have preferred to have remained at home but recognised their increased need for care and support. People told us that they found the staff very caring and generally felt well cared for. People's comments included: 'Yes, I like it here, the staff do a lot for me and never seem to mind' and 'The staff are friendly and make me laugh, they are very kind.' A relative said 'It is very good here, I do not have any concerns'; and 'there is lots of laughter and kindness.'
We found staff had taken action to deal with issues raised about records at our last inspection.
People said that they enjoyed the food most of the time and there was a choice at all meals.
We found that the home was well maintained and clean.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.
People we spoke with told us that they were happy in the home and felt comfortable. People told us that all the staff were very caring and said "The girls are very helpful and kind" and "I have no complaints and I feel I am well looked after". One person told us that sometimes they felt that "Night staff were abrupt" but also said that this was not "Really a problem" and generally staff were very patient.
Relatives we spoke with said that they were happy with the care provided. One person told us that there had been some issues, but felt that there had been some improvements.
We observed that staff read and understood care plans which meant that they knew what care and support to provide to people. Staff had received training in dementia and they told us that the course had been "Very good and useful".
Not all of the records for monitoring and recording the care given were accurately maintained, which meant that there was a lack of proper information available about the care given.