Newhey Manor Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care plans did not provide sufficient detail about people’s individual risks, some of which were complex, and actions staff could take to mitigate those risks were not recorded. Care records for people did not record how the staff team should support people consistently and in a person-centred way. Care records did not provide sufficient detail for staff. Care was not always person-centred, nor was this always dignified for people.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We saw from an action plan that the service had recently introduced a ‘resident of the day’ programme; a scheme that focuses extra attention on each resident on a given day, with the aim being to put people at the centre of their care. We saw no evidence of this being carried out or recorded.
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.
There were numerous systems in place for carers to update when recording aspects of people’s care, which was time consuming and confusing for staff. For example, records relating to bathing were separate and not within care plans; daily notes were also another stand-alone system. We saw that daily notes did not always reflect what had occurred in the service; they were not always a true reflection of how people had spent their day. Visits from other healthcare professionals were not always accurately recorded.
Systems needed to be simplified for care staff to ensure a greater degree of accuracy and continuity.
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People did not consistently have their communication preferences assessed. This resulted in staff not working in a consistent way when supporting and communicating with them.
We saw one person was served their lunch in the lounge. It was left in front of them, on a tray table for some time. We queried with staff if they were able to eat independently and was told they were. We did not see staff communicate with the person to alert them they had a meal or try to offer assistance and encourage them to eat until after we brought it to staff’s attention.
A family told us how their relative’s first language wasn’t English. We saw no information however in their preferred language; nor had the person or family been consulted about how best to communicate with them.
 

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Relatives shared that they had never been invited to take part in surveys.
Two family members we spoke with had not yet had the opportunity to offer feedback as there had been no resident and relatives meetings held. Whilst they considered the registered manager to be ‘hands on’ and ‘proactive’ they were keen to be involved in care planning reviews and giving feedback. We saw no evidence of how the provider sought feedback from people and their relatives for their views on how the service might be improved.
 

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider did not always work effectively with health and social care professionals to support good access to services or make necessary adjustments to ensure fair access for everyone. For example, one people had not received all their prescribed medication following the monthly delivery. New medication prescribed to help the person remain calm was not received.
This medication remained out of stock for several days before contact was made with the pharmacy and the missing medication queried again. The provider did not explore or utilise other options to try and source this medication.
 

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.
People’s changing health and care needs had not always been appropriately addressed. Whilst reviews of care had taken place these had not always identified changes in people’s needs. Care plans did not always reflect current need and therefore good experiences and outcomes were limited.
 

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.
At the time of this assessment 2 people were deemed to be at end of life. Person-centred care plans in relation to end of life care wishes had not been completed, although staff we spoke with were familiar with their needs and care preferences. There was no detailed information relating to people’s choices or preferences for the care they wished to receive from staff when approaching the end of their lives.
The subject of end-of-life care planning can be distressing to discuss. There was no evidence to suggest people and their families had been approached to discuss their wishes for this stage of their life. If end of life wishes had been broached with relatives, any refusals to discuss this were not documented or recorded.