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

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

Our judgement

Staff at the home work hard to try to make sure that people’s privacy and dignity are respected.

User experience

At our previous visit to Newstead House, we had found concerns about the way that people’s rights to privacy and dignity were being managed at the home. We returned to the home to check whether improvements had taken place. 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. Some people told us that they felt that staff did not always listen to them and did not always provide care which promoted their dignity and privacy. One person said “some staff are a bit abrupt, but most of them are lovely”.

We saw that staff knocked before entering bedrooms and were careful to make sure that people had privacy when any personal care was being provided. Staff were kind and caring in the way they spoke to people, and we saw that staff did not rush people, but gave them as much time as they needed.

Other evidence

We saw notes of a recent meeting where people living at the home and their relatives had been encouraged to put forward their views. People told us that they appreciated the chance to discuss ways in which the home could improve. Staff told us that a comments box would soon be available so that people could make suggestions about the home anonymously if they wished.

The Chief Executive of the Somerset Redstone Trust (the owners of the home) told us that he had written to everybody living at the home and their relatives following our last visit to ask for suggestions of ways in which the home could improve.

There was evidence in the care records that staff knew about people’s preferences such as preferred time to go to bed in the evening. People told us that staff generally provided care and support in the way they wanted it provided. Care plans did not always make it clear that people or their relatives had been offered the opportunity to be involved in planning and reviewing their care needs. People told us that they had not seen the care plans, but most people and their relatives said that they would not wish to be involved as they saw this as something they would prefer staff to do for them.