Newhey Manor Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.
 

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.
People were treated with gentleness and consideration. There was a caring attitude with staff members using touch when speaking to people and crouching in front of them, speaking kindly and making eye contact.
Feedback from the relatives and visitors to the home was positive, with everyone rating the friendliness of the staff as excellent. The local GP practice also spoke positively about the staff commenting, “In the encounters that I have observed between staff and residents, respect and good rapport have been typical”.
People were treated with respect when, for example, they were taken for personal care. However, we also observed people with food stains on their tops for prolonged periods of times. Appropriate equipment was not always used to protect clothing during meal times and dirty clothes were not changed in a timely manner.
The registered manager said he ensured people were treated with kindness through observations and by promoting the welfare of the residents outside of tasks and making sure there was time to do this.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.
Care plans did not consistently include people’s personal preferences and did not include detailed information about their life histories and things that were important to them. One person’s “all about me” section had been completed by a family member, however the majority of these were not completed.
One person’s assessment of capacity stated to spend time with them individually, remind them of their family and daughter and let them feel at home, however this was not documented in their care plan and there was no evidence in daily care notes of this happening.

Where preferences were included in care plans, such as an individual enjoying a particular type of music, we did not see any evidence that their preference was considered or included in their daily living at the home. Similarly, one person enjoyed going on outings to a farm and liked animals, but there was no evidence that any activities had been planned with this preference in consideration.

Some care plans did include information specific to the individual and how to manage their behaviours due to their dementia. However, reviews of this information were not meaningful and when we spoke to staff some said they did not look at the care plans so this information was not taken into account in daily care of the individual.
 

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
People were not supported to have control and choice over their own care. One person was in the lounge in an area by themselves watching TV for the majority of the day. At lunch time their food was placed in front of her on a low table. A knife and fork were placed on the table with the handles facing away. The person was not asked whether they would like to move to the dining room to eat where other people were and struggled to eat their food from the position they were in. While they were given the opportunity to eat independently, they were not supported to do this effectively or provided with choice about how and where they would like to eat.
People were supported to maintain their relationships with those close to them as their friends and family were free to come and see them with no restrictions.
One person had been seen by a physiotherapist and their care plan stated they should be supported to walk with two carers and do exercises to help and increase their mobility. This person was not supported to walk while we were at the service, instead they were taken by wheelchair when they needed personal care and then supported back into the chair, where they remained for the day, before being taken to bed. When we spoke to this person, they said they “did no walking”. This person was not being supported become more mobile and increase their independence.
 

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.
Staff were available to attend to people’s needs, and we did see staff spending time with the people outside of tasks. Staff were mostly responsive to people’s needs, for example one person was very upset in the dining area and a member of staff came and sat with them, spoke to them kindly and spent time reassuring them until they were ready to be supported back to the lounge. However, one person spent a large amount of time walking around the home and staff said that they struggled to find their bedroom. The service had not considered using signs or arrows or a picture familiar to this person to help them locate their room, instead they continued to walk around the home, sometimes entering other people’s bedrooms.
We did observe staff showing care for people in a meaningful way. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We focused on one person who has been diagnosed with dementia. During the observation they picked up an empty cup and looked inside, appearing to want a drink. Within the next 5 minutes a staff member came over to them, held their hands and asked if they would like a drink.
 

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.
The process for recording the daily activities of the people including food, personal care and behaviours was time consuming and very difficult to use in real time, causing things to be missed and meaning an accurate report of a person’s day and their behaviours and needs was not always created. This meant people received care that was not always effective and person centred. One newer staff member said she learned about people’s needs through reading these logs as they had not looked at the care plans; a more structured induction and scheduling would provide the necessary time to read through people’s care plans and stay informed of people’s needs.
Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager, had suitable shifts and rest breaks and would be comfortable to raise any concerns. The registered manager was visible within the service speaking to staff and the people in the home and feedback about the registered manager was positive from both the staff and the people visiting the home.
Monthly meetings provided the opportunity for feedback and discussions and the registered manager said he tried to promote a culture of caring for each other and always tried to accommodate the staff and their individual needs.