Newhey Manor Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent.
 

This service scored 46 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
People’s needs were initially assessed and included consideration of their physical, mental health, and social needs. Information gathered from people, or their relatives, was used to inform the development of care plans. A review of people’s care plans identified on-going reviews did not take into account all incidents and accidents that had occurred; changes in need were not always identified or acted upon.
People’s care records did not reflect on-going involvement from their relatives or representatives in their development following admission to the home. This is vital to ensure individual needs, wishes and preferences are reflected. Our findings were confirmed by feedback we received from people’s relatives. The registered manager had not explored with people’s relatives whether they wanted input into the care planning and review processes.
 

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did not always follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.
There were templates within care plans to gather life stories from people, however these were rarely completed or were basic. We saw 1 good example of a life story that had been completed by a close relative and given to the home following admission. No attempts had been made to engage with people and formally record their life histories. Personal histories help to tailor care and build meaningful relationships.
There were no Dignity Champions among the staff team. Dignity champions in care homes are individuals committed to promoting and upholding dignity and respect for care home residents by challenging disrespectful behaviour and raising awareness about person-centred care.
Whilst we saw some evidence of engagement with relatives and / or people’s representatives there was no evidence of their involvement in care planning. The home operated an open-door policy in relation to visitors.
 

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.
The service was not always working in partnership with health and social care professionals. People were not always supported by an effective team, as the registered manager was reluctant to delegate tasks to senior staff. For example, the registered manager completed and reviewed all care plans; these were not up to date or reflective of people’s current needs. The lack of delegation had a negative impact on team development. Senior staff were reluctant to lead the team of staff.
Staff worked with a range of health care professionals to help met people’s current and changing needs. The service had access to GPs who visited when necessary; referrals were made to other health care agencies, such as community nurses, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists, so additional advice and support could be sought.
All staff actively participated in daily handovers. Staff we spoke with told us they found the handover meetings useful and informative.
 

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.
Accurate and complete records were not maintained in relation to people’s current and changing needs. This information helps to quickly identify where additional support maybe required.
There was little opportunity for physical activity and people rarely left the home, unless it was with a relative or friend. There was no activity worker on site and staff were busy dealing with care tasks; they didn’t have the time needed to explore and deliver suitable activities for people with dementia. Further opportunities needed exploring, taking into consideration people’s hobbies and interests. People were left to their own devices for the majority of the time.
Health care needs were met as records confirmed people were registered with a GP, and there was regular consultation regarding people’s changing needs or any illness. We saw evidence of the involvement of other health care professionals, such as district nurses and occupational therapists.
 

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care delivery and staff practices were not always aligned to people’s care records which meant there were missed opportunities to improve people’s everyday lives. For example, one person had been given a series of exercises from the occupational physiotherapy team, to help improve their mobility following a stay in hospital. We did not see staff assisting the person to walk around the home during this assessment; they were not helped to mobilise and were moved around the service using a wheelchair. This did not improve the person’s outcomes.
 

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.
People’s abilities to consent to care and treatment were not being consistently assessed, reviewed or monitored. There was no evidence of any mental capacity assessments or best interest decisions for anyone who lacked capacity, recorded within care plans. We saw little evidence of consent forms or signed requests where people with capacity had made decisions. We could not be assured that people’s individual rights were being upheld.
Relatives told us they were not involved in care reviews or any decisions made in people’s best interest, where they lacked capacity. We saw no records relating to any relatives having Lasting Power of Attorney. It wasn’t clear how decisions were being made on behalf of people, or whether the right people were being consulted.
A summary log was in place. Whilst repeat applications for both new and expired DoLS had been made we saw no evidence of any contact with the supervisory body, the local authority, to follow up or question their progress. A new DoLS application for 1 person had been made on 10 October 2024 and was still outstanding.
People’s equality, diversity and human rights were not being upheld, due to poor implementation and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).