Newmarket House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

At our last assessment we rated well-led as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff felt they had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where the service was changing.

All staff we spoke with said there was a positive culture within the service, and they felt well supported by their immediate management and hospital director.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. The provider’s senior leadership team had successfully communicated the provider’s vision and values to the front line staff in this service.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where the service was changing. Staff we spoke with confirmed there were regular discussions about strategy and ways to increase referral numbers.

Staff could explain how they were working to deliver high quality care within the budgets available.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. They had an extensive understanding of the service they managed, and the disorders in which the service treated. Managers could explain clearly how the team was working together to provide high quality care.

Leaders were visible in the service and approachable for patients and staff.

Leadership development opportunities were available, including opportunities for staff. The service manager told us they were completing a management qualification to support them in their role.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The service did not have equality and diversity champions within the service. However, all staff we spoke with understood their roles and responsibilities around equality and diversity.

Staff were able to apply to work flexibly e.g. flexible working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role.

The provider undertook equality monitoring of staff within the service to ensure it is diverse in its make-up and representative of the patient group.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and

support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The findings from the other key questions demonstrated that governance processes were effective in identifying issues and driving improvement.

There was a clear framework of what must be discussed in team meetings to ensure that essential information, such as learning from incidents and complaints, was shared and discussed.

Staff undertook or participated in local clinical audits. The audits were sufficient to provide assurance and staff acted on the results when needed. Audits included health and safety, infection control, medication, good governance, nutrition and mealtimes, restrictive practice, care plan sharing and a daily medical record check.

Staff maintained and had access to the risk register. All staff were able to escalate their concerns if needed.

The service had a business continuity plan in place for emergencies. This plan covered areas such as power failures and disease outbreaks.

Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. Staff took patient confidentiality and information security seriously. Staff could access all required policies and procedures through the service’s online record system.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work. Staff said these systems worked well.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work

seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Service leaders engaged with external stakeholders – such as commissioners, case managers, the referrals and Allocations Team.

The provider attended monthly Clinical Design and Development Group (CDDG) meetings where they played a part in any discussions and plans for the future of the eating disorder provision in the area.

We reviewed feedback from an external organisation who worked closely with the service. The feedback stated that the team demonstrated a thoughtful and proactive approach to meeting the patient’s autism related needs, alongside the management of their eating disorder. Adjustments to communication, predictability, sensory considerations, routines and the care environment clearly supported improved engagement and reduced distress, and that these efforts reflect a strong commitment to delivering coordinated, person-centred care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service had showed innovative practise through 2 members of the therapy team being trained to complete ADOS-2 assessment for autism, this development was made in response to increased awareness and evidence of the link between autism and eating disorders. In addition to this, 1 member of the therapy team had been trained to complete diagnostic interview for ADHD, in response to increased evidence of neurodivergence in patients presenting with eating disorders.

The service was accredited with the Royal College of Psychiatrists Quality network for eating disorders (QED). The Quality Network for Eating Disorders (QED) works with

inpatient and community services to assure and improve the quality of services treating people with eating disorders and their carers.

Newmarket House partnered with researchers from the local university on the ALLIANCE study, a project funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research that is designed to understand the complex array of factors that contribute to therapeutic alliance between staff and service users in inpatient eating disorder treatment settings. The findings will be used to develop practice and policy recommendations to improve the delivery of inpatient treatment across the country.

Newmarket House collaborated with the local acute hospital when patients required acute care as part of their admission and had a positive working relationship with the Gastroenterology consultants on the ward.