You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 October 2018

This inspection took place on 24 and 26 September 2018. The first day was unannounced, however we informed staff we would be returning for a second day to complete the inspection and announced this in advance.

Newlands care home is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide care for up to 30 older people. The home provides accommodation across two floors and provides both residential and nursing care. The home is located on Tetlow Lane in Salford and is close to local transport routes into Manchester city centre. The home provides care to people who are of Jewish faith, although people of all religions are welcome.

At the time of the inspection there were 23 people living at the home.

Newlands is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection of Newlands in September 2017, the home was rated as ‘Requires Improvement’, with three breaches of the regulations identified. These were with regards to safeguarding people from abuse, good governance and staffing. A warning notice was also issued because of unsafe staffing levels within the home. Following this inspection, we were sent an action plan by the home which detailed the improvements the intended to make.

This comprehensive inspection checked to see if the concerns from the previous inspection had been addressed. We found improvements had been since our last inspection visit.

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.

The people we spoke with said the food served at the home was of good quality and we saw people being supported to eat by staff at meal times. People were weighed on a regular basis and more frequently if they were identified as being at risk of losing weight. Suitable facilities were available to cater for Kosher diets where people required this as part of their religion.

We saw the home responded appropriately where people had lost weight. However, we recommend actions set during the monthly weight audits done within the home, such as offering people higher calorie foods, are clearly documented within people’s food and fluid intake sheets as being either offered, consumed or refused by people. Also, that people’s nutritional supplements are clearly documented on both MAR and fluid sheets to ensure records of fluid people had consumed were accurate.

We saw people’s fluid charts indicated people received good levels of fluids throughout the day. However we recommend the targets staff should encourage people need to consume are clearly documented within care plans so that staff know how much people need to drink each day. We raised these issues with the registered manager during the inspection feedback, who immediately sent us copies of updated documentation where this information would be recorded.

We found there were enough staff to care for people safely, with staff having access to appropriate training to support them in their role. The registered manager told us the provider was now more willing to provide additional staff if people’s care needs increased, or if occupancy increased.

The service was now working within the principles of the MCA (Mental Capacity Act), with capacity assessments and best interest meetings held where people were unable to consent to their care and treatment.

Improvements had been made to overall quality monitoring systems to ensure the service was being monitored effectively.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt the service was safe. T

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 October 2018

The service was safe.

Medication was being administered safely

People living at the home said they felt safe and staff understood their responsibilities with regards to protecting people from abuse.

Staff were recruited safely with appropriate checks carried out before they started work.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 October 2018

The service was effective; however, we have made two recommendations regarding people’s fluid intake and the recording within food and fluid documentation.

Appropriate systems were in place regarding DoLs and the MCA.

Staff told us they received sufficient training, induction and supervision to support them in their roles.

We observed staff seeking consent from people throughout the inspection.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 October 2018

The service was caring.

People who lived at the home and visiting relatives made positive comments about the care being provided.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

We observed caring interactions between staff and people living at the home.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans were completed with good detail about their care needs and preferences.

Complaints were responded to appropriately.

Activities were available to people to participate in if they wished to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 October 2018

The service was well-led.

The home had systems in place to monitor the quality of service being provided.

Everybody we spoke with made positive comments about management and leadership within the home.

Staff meetings and handovers took place so that staff could discuss their work and raise any concerns.