You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 October 2017

Newton House is registered to provide accommodation for up to 126 people requiring nursing or personal care, including people living with dementia. The home is purpose built and is divided into four discrete ‘communities’ or units. The Watergate and Somerby units provide accommodation for people with general nursing and care needs whilst Castlegate and Brownlow are reserved for people living with dementia.

We inspected the home on 12 September 2017. The inspection was unannounced. There were 84 people living in the home at the time of our inspection. This was because, following our last inspection in December 2016, the registered provider had introduced an embargo on new admissions.

The home did not have a registered manager. The registered provider had appointed a new manager in July 2017. At the time of our inspection an application to register this person had been submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers (‘the provider’), 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.

In December 2015 we conducted a first comprehensive inspection of the home. We found the provider was in breach of legal requirements in two areas and rated the home as Requires Improvement in all five key questions and overall. In December 2016 we conducted a focused, follow up inspection to review the provider’s progress in addressing the two breaches of legal requirements. We found that the necessary improvement had not been made and the provider was now in breach of legal requirements in three areas. As a result, we reduced the rating in the Safe key question to Inadequate and initiated further action against the provider.

On this inspection we were pleased to find significant improvement had now been made and that the three breaches of regulations had been addressed. Reflecting our findings, the rating of the home is now Good.

There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their care and support needs. Staff worked well together in a mutually supportive way. Training and supervision systems were in place to provide staff with the knowledge and skills they required to meet people’s needs effectively.

There was a friendly, relaxed atmosphere and staff supported people in a kind and attentive way. Staff knew and respected people as individuals and provided responsive, person-centred care. People were provided with food and drink of good quality that met their individual needs and preferences. The décor and facilities in the home had been refurbished to reflect the needs of people living with dementia.

People’s medicines were managed safely and staff worked closely with local healthcare services to ensure people had access to any specialist support they required. People’s individual risk assessments were reviewed and updated to take account of changes in their needs. There had been significant reductions in the number of falls and violent incidents between people living in the home. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns to keep people safe from harm.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA) and 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, usually to protect themselves. At the time of our inspection the provider had been granted DoLS authorisations for 45 people living in the home and was waiting for a further 17 applications to be assessed by the local authority. Staff had an understanding of the MCA and demonstrated their awareness of the need to obtain consent before providing care or support to people. Decisions that st

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 October 2017

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns to keep people safe from harm.

People’s risk assessments were reviewed and updated to take account of changes in their needs.

Action had been taken to reduce the number of falls and violent incidents.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s care and support needs.

People’s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff understood how to support people who lacked the capacity to make some decisions for themselves.

The provider maintained a record of staff training requirements and arranged a variety of courses to meet their needs.

Staff were provided with effective supervision and support.

Staff worked closely with local healthcare services to ensure people had access to any specialist support they needed.

People were provided with food and drink of good quality that met their needs and preferences.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 October 2017

The service was caring.

Staff provided person-centred care in a kind and friendly way.

Staff encouraged people to maintain their independence and to exercise choice and control over their lives.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 October 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s individual care plans were well-organised and kept under regular review by senior staff.

Staff knew people as individuals and provided care that was responsive to their personal preferences and needs.

A range of communal activities and events was provided to help stimulate and occupy people.

People knew how to raise concerns or complaints and were confident that the provider would respond effectively.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 October 2017

The service was well-led.

The manager had the respect and loyalty of her team.

Action had been taken to address shortfalls identified at previous inspections.

A range of auditing and monitoring systems was in place to monitor the quality of service provision.

Staff worked together in a friendly and supportive way.