Newmarket House

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has remained outstanding.

This meant people were truly respected and valued as individuals; and empowered as partners in their care in an exceptional service.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Summarise your findings here using the topics below:

Staff developed therapeutic relationships with patients based on trust, compassion, and understanding. They demonstrated a strong knowledge of each individual’s needs, preferences, and personal history. Staff remained attentive, listened actively, and communicated in ways patients could easily understand. They offered reassurance, encouragement, and emotional support whenever needed.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

All patients and carers were overwhelmingly positive when talking about the staff and the care they had received from staff and the service. Patients told us they felt listened to and that staff were patient and supportive. Patients told us they had been in treatment before, but they had not felt as safe and as positive about the future until they came to Newmarket House. All carers told us they felt involved in discussions, felt supported and they felt listened to for the first time.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

Staff had developed strong relationships with patients and understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to meeting the diverse needs of all patients, particularly those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Staff provided dedicated support for communication, advocacy, and cultural and spiritual needs, ensuring an inclusive environment for everyone.

We reviewed individualised progression plans for patients. These were weekly timetables, which were personalised with staff and patient involvement to meet patients’ specific interests and therapeutic needs. For example, one progression plan was created using quotes and themes from a popular film series, which was a favourite of the patients. It was clear through reviewing the progression plan, that staff had taken thought and consideration and carried out extensive research on the film series to make the progression plan interesting and engaging for the patient.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients – for example, by ensuring disabled people’s access to premises and by meeting patients’ specific communication needs.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerance's.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support.

Patients collaborated with staff to identify support groups that would best complement their treatment. For instance, reflecting the current patient demographic, staff launched a social media group directly in response to patient feedback

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at promoting people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients we spoke with, told us staff listened to their concerns and made decisions together. They told us treatment stages were fully explained, and any questions they had were answered directly and in full.

Patients and carers said staff provided extensive and clear information about the service and their treatment plans. Family members told us there was a range of support available, and a booklet was given to them on the day of admission to provide all information and to give them a contact name for updates. Families benefited from a holistic range of resources designed to facilitate their involvement in the care process. This included a dedicated staff member for ongoing support, structured workshops, and regular Carer’s Support Plan Meetings. The service ensured continuous accessibility by offering both face-to-face sessions and flexible telephone support to meet diverse needs.

Patients who had been prescribed medicines said staff gave them clear information about side effects, that medication options were discussed with them and helpful information was provided to inform their choice of medicine.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional in how they 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.

Patients we spoke with told us staff gave them the support and treatment to advocate for their individual needs. This included knowing how to reduce discomfort and responding to distress in the moment. Patients felt that staff knew them well enough to give them individualised support. Patients felt confident approaching staff with issues or concerns, knowing they would be listened to and supported.

Staff were aware of the specific risks related to the patient group. For example, significant changes in weight, re-feeding syndrome and the need for physical health monitoring. Staff had received extensive training in working with the patient group.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, relating to patients. Staff knew and understood high risk dates and events and could confidently support patients through challenges.

The provider demonstrated a high level of responsiveness to individual patient concerns. For example, when a readmitted patient expressed apprehension about working with a previous therapist, staff provided immediate reassurance. A multidisciplinary team meeting was held to address these concerns and establish a collaborative care plan that ensured the patient felt safe and supported.

We scored the service as 4. The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service always cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and was exceptional at supporting and enabling staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke with, told us they felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the provider and their team. Most staff had worked with the provider for several years. The service’s staff sickness, absence and turnover rates were low.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through ongoing support from the provider.

The service’s staff sickness, absence and turnover rates were low.

Staff appraisals consistently integrated discussions on career progression and support mechanisms. To further this commitment, the provider implemented specialised training aimed at enhancing both professional growth and the overall patient experience. This included, training a staff member to become a Certified Sensory Inclusion Facilitator and training staff to become qualified in completing the ADOS-2 assessment for autism. In addition to this, 1 member of the therapy team had been trained to complete diagnostic interview for ADHD diagnoses.

The services non-hierarchical working environment was built on a culture of openly welcoming challenge. Staff were encouraged to question ideas, even those from senior leaders to fuel innovation and positive change.