Archived: Newbridge Towers

After our last comprehensive inspection in May 2015, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches of regulation found. These were in the following areas; the home was not suitably clean and there were unsafe recruitment procedures in place. There were failings in relation to DoLS applications not being made for people when needed .There were also shortfalls in how the service was run. In particular, statutory notifications had not been made to the Commission for incidents that we need to be notified about.

Newbridge Towers is registered to provide personal care for up to 20 people. On the days of our visit, there were 20 people at the home.

The new provider of the service had submitted an application to be registered with us. We rejected this application, as it was incomplete. It is a legal condition that a provider carrying out a regulated activity and running a care home is registered with us.

There was no registered manager for the service. The acting manager’s application to be registered with the Care Quality Commission had been returned as it was incomplete.The acting manager had not kept written interview notes for three interviews carried out for prospective new staff .This meant there was a risk that unsuitable staff could be recruited if there was insufficient information to refer to when making a decision about their employment. .

There was enough staff that were suitably qualified on duty at all times to meet the needs of people at the home. Staff were trained and competent to know how to minimise risks to people from abuse and there were systems in place to keep people safe from harm.

Staff were very caring in their manner towards the people who assisted them with their needs. One person said, “They are all lovely girls”. Staff were very polite and demonstrated that they were respectful in manner to the people they supported.

People were able to consume a varied diet that supported them to be healthy and to make choices about what they ate and drank. The menus included likes and preferences of people who lived at the home. People spoke highly of the food that they were served. One person said, “The food is lovely and you can have what you ever you want they really don’t mind at all.”

The provider had a system in place so that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were implemented when needed. This legislation protects the rights of people who lack capacity to make informed decisions in relation to different areas in their daily lives.

People were able to take part in a variety of individual social activities as well as group ones that they told us they really enjoyed. People told us that entertainers performed at the home regularly and they went out for trips into the local area if they wanted to on a daily basis.

Care plans were informative and helped to guide staff so that they understood what actions to take to meet people’s range of care needs. Staff were familiar with the content of each person’s care records. They knew how to provide care that was flexible to each individual and met their needs. Care plans were produced with the involvement of the person concerned. The care plans had been reviewed and updated regularly, this was to make sure they reflected the current needs of people.

People were supported with their physical health care needs and the staff consulted with external healthcare professionals to get specialist advice and guidance when needed.

Staff felt they were well supported in their work by the acting manager. People who lived at the home and the staff said they felt they could see the acting manager any time that they wished to talk to them.

Staff had an understanding what the provider’s values and aims were for the service. They knew the key value was to treat each person as if they were still living in their own home and as unique individuals. Audits demonstrated that regular checks were carried out on the safety and quality of the service. The system had identified that the provider’s interview forms had not been used at recent interviews.

At the time of this inspection there were 17 people living at Newbridge Towers. One inspector carried out the inspection.

During this inspection we saw improvements had been made regarding infection control. However, planning permission had to be sought in order to make the necessary alterations to the premises. Therefore we repeated the compliance action regarding the premises.

The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe.

We saw bedrooms were personalised and security systems were in place to protect people's safety.

The service was clean and hygienic.

Is the service effective?

The home did not currently have suitable storage, laundry and sluice facilities. The provider had needed to apply for planning permission to address these issues. We requested an action plan which was submitted by the provider shortly after our inspection.

Is the service caring?

People described the staff as 'very caring, kind and friendly.' Everyone we spoke with said the staff knew them well and they had the care and support they needed.

It was clear from observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs.

Is the service responsive?

People told us their care plan reflected their current needs.

People told us they were supported to maintain relationships with people that were important to them. Visitors confirmed they were able to see their friend/relative in private and visiting times were flexible.

The service worked well with health and social care professionals to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. We spoke with a healthcare professional during our visit. They said 'the staff do everything we ask of them, follow instructions very well. No one has any pressure areas, they are just fab.'

People explained they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.

Is the service well-led?

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good

understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance processes in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

All of the staff told us they would report poor practice if they witnessed it.

Everyone we spoke with said the manager was 'approachable' and described her as 'professional and organised.'

The arrangements for ensuring we are notified of incidents which occur in the registered manager's absence needed improving.

People who lived at the home told us that the staff and manager asked them about their care needs. We saw evidence that a variety of needs were taken into account in care planning. One individual said 'the food is very good here'. People told us that they were offered a choice of food and drink that met their individual requirements and that staff supported them at meal times if needed.

We observed that the manager and staff had taken some steps to ensure that the home was clean and that people were protected against the risk of infection.

We saw that bedrooms were personalised and that security systems were in place to protect people's safety. However, there were a number of potential hazards in the environment.

We observed that a system for assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision was being implemented in the home.

Two people who used the service told us they felt safe at the home and staff were "lovely". We saw the staff, who were on duty at the time of the site visit, were caring and kind in their manner towards the people. We saw staff members helped people in a thoughtful and considerate way. They were able to convey to us a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service and what kind of care and support each person needed.

A staff member told us "we are all like a community here. Some staff have worked here many years."

We looked at four people' care files and saw new care planning documentation had been introduced. These set out the assessed care needs of each person, and how those needs were to be met.

People who used the service confirmed they knew how to make a complaint. They were confident the staff team would resolve any complaint they made in a timely manner.