You are here

Archived: Newstead House

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 22 September 2011
Date of Publication: 7 November 2011
Inspection Report published 7 November 2011 PDF


Inspection carried out on 22 September 2011

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited Newstead House to check whether the home had made the improvements which we had required following a review in July 2011. We found that some of the improvements had been carried out, but in some other key areas, there had been a deterioration in standards, which had led to people receiving an unsafe standard of care.

We spoke to some people who live at the home and some relatives whose family members live at the home. Most of the people we spoke to were not happy with the service at Newstead House. They told us about times when people�s privacy and dignity were not respected or promoted. Although people spoke highly of some of the staff, saying that they were �kind� and �very helpful when they have time�, other people told us that they felt that the staff were too busy to spend time with them.

We saw that people�s care needs were not always being met, and there was evidence that the home was not providing a safe standard of care to meet people�s assessed needs.

People were at risk of not receiving enough to eat or drink at the home, because hydration and nutrition were not being managed safely. We saw that drinks were out of people�s reach, and a relative told us that their family member was �always thirsty�.

There had been improvements in the management of infection control risks, and also in the way in which equipment was maintained and serviced.

People were at risk of not receiving their medication as prescribed, because the home was not ensuring that records were accurate and that staff completed them fully.

There were not enough staff on duty at all times to meet people�s needs in a timely manner. There was only one nurse on duty to meet the nursing needs of 32 people.

The home was not providing safe quality care and support, because the systems for monitoring the quality of the service were not effective.