New Forest Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

There had been a new provider and management team since our last inspection. The manager told us they felt well supported by the provider in driving service improvements in a way that promoted positive outcomes for people and staff. This support had enabled several improvement initiatives including refurbishment of some areas of the building, new equipment being purchased and resurfacing of the car park and installation of an outside path. Staff training had been reviewed to ensure staff had the right skills and knowledge for high quality care. The manager told us they planned to introduce staff “champion” roles in areas including infection prevention and control and end of life care to promote shared responsibility and embed best practice.

Although most people we spoke with were not sure who the manager was, people’s relatives told us they did know. One person’s relative said, “The management team seem very approachable. [Manager] was very helpful and very approachable when I had some queries. The call bell system has been updated since the home was taken over. They’ve rearranged the furniture, and the dining room is now the library which I think is nice. My relative comes out of their room more now.” Another person’s relative said, “We’ve seen many changes. It’s like a second home there for us; it’s like a family.”

Overall, staff feedback was positive, noting improvements to how the service was run and telling us they felt valued and supported in their roles. For example, one staff member told us the culture had changed significantly with the new owners and new management team, and another staff member told us morale and teamwork had improved. Staff told us they were encouraged to raise concerns and felt confident to do so. One staff member said “[Director name] is really encouraging a workplace where we can speak up if anything is bothering us. They don’t want anyone to go home with any issues playing on our minds.” Another staff member said, “They seem to be very on the ball with everything. There is no waiting around. If you ask something, you’ll get an answer straight away.”

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider did not have good governance.

Governance systems were not effective. Audits had not identified the issues we noted in relation to medicines management, wound care records and end of life care planning. Some issues we noted such as generic PRN protocols and wound care records were raised at the previous inspection but had not been fully addressed. Medicine audits had failed to identify that staff were not complying with the provider’s medicines policy. Not all medicine audits had been dated and action plans were blank.

The new management team had some oversight of the service and had begun to drive improvements and had put in place systems to ensure ongoing oversight and continued progress. For example, since our last inspection, we saw improvements had been made regarding security of the premises. However, further improvements were needed and revised systems and processes needed to be fully embedded and sustained. The management team were open and responsive to any issues we raised and where possible took immediate action to rectify them.

The manager ensured statutory notifications were completed as required and promptly informed relevant partners in response to safeguarding concerns.

Complaints and concerns were logged, investigated and used as learning opportunities to improve the service. People and their relatives told us they felt confident to raise concerns and that it was easy to do so.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.