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 54 (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 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.
Care plans did not provide sufficient detail about people’s individual needs and risks and how those risks could be mitigated. There was a lack of person centred information in people’s care plans and care was task orientated with minimal regard to people’s personal choices and interests.
The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and we did not see evidence of working in partnership with families to respond to changes in people’s needs.
A resident of the day scheme was now in place but there was limited evidence that this was embedded to ensure people’s care was more person centred.
 

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.
Improvements in the provision of dementia care were required to enable people living in the home to have a good quality of life. Required improvements that were raised at the last inspection, such as access to outside and accessing support in the community regarding dementia care, such as accessing dementia cafes, had not been implemented.
Further training was required to ensure that staff could support people effectively. Only 2 people, 1 of which was the registered manager, had received diabetes training, despite five people who lived in the home having diabetes. This training was required to ensure staff fully understood the needs of the people they were supporting.
 

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
There was a lack of adequate signage in the home to help people orientate and locate their bedrooms.
We were told that the residents give their choice of meal to the staff each morning, however, during lunch time some residents did not want what they had ordered in the morning. The meal written on the white board in the kitchen was incorrect and we did not see evidence of the menu options being offered or displayed in any visual formats to aid understanding and help people make a more informed decision about their meal choices.
 

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.
At the previous inspection the lack of resident and relative meetings was highlighted. At this inspection we saw evidence of one meeting scheduled for June, however no meetings had taken place before this date, limiting the opportunities for people to provide feedback.
People and their families felt more activities would be beneficial, with one person telling us, “I just sit here most of the time” and a relative saying, “They don't do anything with them. There are no activities. They should do more to stimulate the residents as they are long days just sitting about all day.”
There were feedback questionnaires situated in the entrance area, however these were not proactively distributed.
 

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
The service was accessible with adaptions in place such as handrails and specialised equipment including hoists and raised toilet seats. However, there was limited signage in the home and the environment was not dementia friendly, with patterned curtains, several paintings on the walls and a lack of access to outside.
While we were visiting the home the home manager held an armchair exercise class, however there was a lack of engagement from most of the people in the lounge. We did not see any activities taking place with people who were in their bedrooms.
 

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.
Whilst reviews of care had taken place these had not always identified changes in people’s needs or contained contradictory information. Care plans did not always reflect current need or personal preferences and therefore good experiences and outcomes were limited, particularly for people with dementia.
 

People were 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.
Care plans contained information about people’s wishes as they approached the end of their lives, including who was important to them.
The service worked with Springhill Hospice to provide care and support to people approaching the end of their lives and to staff.