Newhey Manor Residential Care Home

Ratings

• Overall

  Requires improvement

• Safe

  Requires improvement

• Effective

  Requires improvement

• Caring

  Requires improvement

• Responsive

  Requires improvement

• Well-led

  Inadequate

Our view of the service

Newhey Manor is a residential care home which provides personal care for up to 24 older people, some living with a diagnosis of dementia. We assessed all quality statements under the five key questions of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well Led. We completed an onsite assessment at Newhey Manor on 6 and 11 August 2025 and continued to collect evidence and feedback after this.
At our last inspection, published in July 2018, the home was rated good overall. At this inspection we found four breaches of the legal regulations in relation to consent, safe care and treatment (including medicines), premises and equipment and good governance. The home is now rated requires improvement.
Risks were not always being appropriately managed. Safe practices were not always being followed. People did not always have their medicines administered safely or at the right times. The environment was not always safe, meaning risks had not always been mitigated. Feedback on learning culture was mixed; staff knew to escalate concerns to the registered manager, but we saw no evidence of this and any suggestions that were made by staff were not followed through.
Whilst staffing levels were safe to meet people’s needs, care staff were also tasked with other duties, such as laundering clothes, aspects of cleaning and activities. People did not always receive person centered care and records were not always person centered or accurate. Care plans lacked detail. It was not clear if people were involved in planning for the future where they wished to be, due to incomplete records. People knew how to give feedback and felt comfortable to raise any concerns with staff and the registered manager.
The registered manager, also the nominated individual, was visible and approachable throughout our inspection, but management had not identified many of the issues we found. Governance and oversight of the service needed significant improvement. The audits and oversight did not support a culture of continuous improvement. Staff we spoke with respected the registered manager and felt the service supported their wellbeing. Staff told us they were treated fairly, and the service employed a diverse range of staff.
Systems were not in place to ensure that the registered manager had sufficient oversight or that he completed all his responsibilities as a manager meaning people’s care was not always at the standard that it could be.
 

People's experience of this service

Although people and their relatives told us people were treated with kindness and compassion, we identified and observed practices that did not always reflect this. People’s privacy and dignity was not always respected, and people were not always treated as individuals. Feedback regarding activities from people we spoke with was mixed; there was no co-ordinator employed at the home to promote and engage people in activities.

People and their loved ones were not always involved in assessments of their needs, and we could not always be confident how often people’s needs were being reviewed and monitored. Staff worked with other agencies and professionals involved in people’s care, though best outcomes were not always achieved for people. Although staff understood consent, we found there was a lack of documentation in place to support consent. Where decisions had been made for people lacking capacity, there were no formal records indicating these were in people’s best interests.