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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.
 

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.

The provider 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 consideration. Staff spoke to people with gentleness and with a caring attitude. People benefited from a consistent staff team who knew people well. However, we observed one person being spoken about in a non-respectful way when they said they could not eat their food.
Feedback from people and their relatives was mixed. One family member said, “(They are) comfortable and yes, I do think they are a caring team." A person living in the home told us, “Staff are mainly familiar faces, they are gentle with me when they help. They are nice.”
However, some relatives felt improvements could be made, saying, “The place is tired and needs decorating. It would be good if they could make a bit of an outside area as well for the hotter weather” and “We have no major concerns about safeguarding or anything but the whole place needs a good cleaning and tidying. They could cut the trees back and make a little patio.”
 

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not 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. This was raised at the last inspection and although the service had changed over to online care files the same issues largely remained.
Where preferences were included in care plans, such as an individual enjoying a particular type of sport, we did not see any evidence that their preference was considered or included in their daily living at the home.
Information from other healthcare professionals was not used to tailor care and support needs to the individual. For example, one resident who had been assessed as requiring a modified diet and not to be given bread unless it was in soup, was regularly given toast and sandwiches. Similarly, people with diabetes were not supported to eat foods that were suitable for them and instead were offered the same meal choices and snacks as the other people living in the home.
Many of these issues were identified at our last inspection and the provider had failed to implement the necessary systems to increase their oversight and make the required improvements.
 

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. People living in the home spent the duration of the day sitting in the lounge with the television on, with only some people moving to the dining room to eat. While staff were kind, people were not asked what they would like to do and where they would like to go.
One person, who remained in bed, expressed frustration at their lack of choices and felt the manager was controlling. They told us that it was not “doing (their) mental state any good.”
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.
 

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.
Staff were available to attend to people’s needs, and provided reassurance and comfort, for example when appearing distressed when being hoisted. However, during lunchtime we observed two people who did not want their choice of meal. It took some time before they were supported to have a meal which they wanted to eat and we did observe them becoming a little upset during this time.
Our SOFI observation was conducted over lunch and there was little interaction between the staff and the people they were supporting, with some people falling asleep and others sat with little or no communication from anyone.
 

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 home had moved over to electronic records for care plans and logging of daily activities. However, staff told us the registered manager had requested they still log daily care activities on a paper format, which resulted in a large amount of administrative tasks for the staff.
A new home manager had not received an induction and senior staff were not supported to reach their potential due to a reluctance from the registered manager to delegate tasks.
Care staff reported being happy at work and said they would be comfortable to raise any concerns.