You are here

Archived: Newstead House

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 9 July 2012
Date of Publication: 10 August 2012
Inspection Report published 10 August 2012 PDF


Inspection carried out on 9 July 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We have carried out six inspections at Newstead House since May 2011. At each inspection we have identified shortfalls which meant that the home was not complying with the essential standards of quality and safety. We have begun to see some improvements, but the pace of change has been slow.

We spent a day at the home carrying out an unannounced inspection of some aspects of the care provided for people. This included observing staff as they supported people. We spoke with six people who were living at the home, relatives who were visiting, staff and the manager. People were positive about the home. One person told us �it�s the most wonderful place I�ve been in since I got ill� and �I can�t speak highly enough about it�.

Many people stayed in their bedrooms for most of the time, so we spent time visiting people in their rooms and talking with them. Many of the people who were living at Newstead House had a dementia type illness, and so were not always able to talk to us about the care and support provided. We spent time in some of the communal areas of the home so that we could see how staff supported people.

Although some people told us that they enjoyed the food at the home, other people said �it�s not to my taste� and �I never remember what I�ve ordered�. There was a lack of meaningful choice of food for people with dementia. This was because people were asked to make their selection up to a week in advance. Kitchen staff were not aware of some people�s specialist dietary needs.

Medication was managed safely at the home. Arrangements were in place for the safe and secure storage of people�s medicines. Appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure that medicines were available and checks could be made.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people�s needs. People told us that the staff were �lovely�, �really kind� and �always willing�.

The home�s systems for monitoring the quality of the service were not effective. This meant that some risks were not identified and managed appropriately. Some records were inaccurate and inconsistent, and this could have meant that staff did not have the information they needed to provide the care that people needed.

Although the provider had not made all the improvements which were necessary in order for the home to be compliant with the Regulations, we have seen that the home had slowly improved over the past months. We have been sharing information with Herefordshire Council and the Primary Care Trust (PCT) under local multi agency procedures for protecting vulnerable adults. The PCT has carried out assurance visits to the home. The information from these visits, together with our own evidence, indicated that people were not at imminent risk of harm and that in general, outcomes for people were good. However, the shortfalls we have identified indicate a risk of poor outcomes for people. We have decided to reissue compliance actions as the most proportionate way for the home to achieve compliance with Regulations.