You are here

Archived: Newstead House

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 10 January 2012
Date of Publication: 1 March 2012
Inspection Report published 1 March 2012 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 10 January 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We visited the home to check if they had made the improvements which we had required them to make following a review in September 2011. We found that there had been some improvements but in some cases people were still at risk because the home was not ensuring that their needs were fully met.

We spoke with five people living at the home and some of their relatives. Most people told us that staff treated them with respect and that they felt that their privacy and dignity were promoted at the home. Staff were kind and caring in the way they spoke to people, and we saw that staff did not rush people, but allowed them as much time as they needed.

There was evidence that some people�s care needs were not being fully met at the home and this put them at risk of poor outcomes.

We saw that people had drinks in front of them, and each person had at least one jug of drink within reach. We saw that staff were encouraging people to drink, but records indicated that some people were not being given enough to drink. People were at risk of not receiving enough to eat or drink at the home, because hydration and nutrition were not managed safely.

Medication was not being managed safely at the home.

We found that staffing levels within the home had been increased and people told us that staff came quickly when they needed them. People spoke highly of most of the staff at the home, and said that they were �kind�, �always cheerful� and �good at their jobs�. The fact that some basic aspects of care, such as the safe management of a pressure ulcer, had not been addressed by the nurses was a concern. There were sufficient numbers of staff, but lack of action on the part of some staff meant that people could be at risk of not having their needs met.

People told us that they appreciated the opportunities which they had been given recently to put forward their views at meetings. The systems in place for making sure that the home was run in people�s best interests were not effective.