You are here

This care home is run by two companies: Gracewell Healthcare 3 Limited and Gracewell Healthcare Limited. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.


Inspection carried out on 28 May 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Gracewell of Newbury is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care, as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

This care home is run by two providers; namely, Gracewell Healthcare Limited and Gracewell Healthcare 3 Limited. These two providers have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home. This report is in relation to Gracewell Healthcare Limited. A separate report has been produced for Gracewell Healthcare 3 Limited.

Gracewell of Newbury accommodates up to 68 people in one building over three floors. The first floor was the ‘Memory Care’ community, which had been designed as a living space suitable for people living with dementia. There were 64 people living in the home at the time of inspection. People living at the service were older people, some of whom were living with dementia.

People's experience of using this service

The service provided exceptionally responsive, person-centred support to people which consistently achieved outstanding outcomes for people. Staff provided excellent consistency and continuity of care which had a major impact on people’s quality of life.

Staff were particularly skilled at involving people and their family, together with health and social care professionals in their care and support plans, so that they felt consulted, empowered, listened to and valued.

Staff consistently went the extra mile to find out what people have done in the past to enable people to carry out person-centred activities which enriched the quality of their lives. People were supported to maintain relationships that mattered to them which protected them from the risk of social isolation and loneliness.

The registered manager used concerns to improve the service. For example, a Hydration Project initiated within the service had significantly reduced the number of falls, infections and weight loss experienced by people living in the home.

The service worked closely with healthcare professionals and provided outstanding end of life care, which ensured people experienced a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.

People were supported by a stable core staff group who were kind, caring and inspired by the registered manager to deliver high quality, personalised care.

People were protected from discrimination, neglect, avoidable harm, and abuse by staff. Risks to people's safety had been identified and assessed. Staff followed people’s risk management plans to keep them safe. People received their prescribed medicines safely, from staff who had their competency to administer medicines assessed. People’s medicines management plans were reviewed regularly to ensure continued administration was still required to meet their needs.

High standards of cleanliness and hygiene were maintained throughout the home, which reduced the risk of infection. Staff followed the required standards of food safety and hygiene, when preparing, serving and handling food.

Staff felt valued and respected by the management team, and consistently demonstrated high levels of morale.Staff had the required skills to meet people’s needs effectively, which led to good outcomes for people’s care and support and promoted their quality of life.

People’s care plans were comprehensive, providing staff with the required information about their needs and how to meet them.

The registered manager had worked effectively with local organisations, health and social care professionals and multi-disciplinary teams and was often the driving force to improve outcomes for people, through joined up care provision.

Rating at the last inspection

At the last inspection the service was rated Good (published 26 September 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We did not identify

Inspection carried out on 26 September 2017

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 26 and 27 September 2017. Gracewell of Newbury is a care home with nursing which is registered to provide care for up to 66 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. There were 47 people resident in the service on the days of the inspection visits. Most people who live in the home are self-funding (pay for their own care). This is the first inspection of the service which was registered in October 2016.

The service did not have a registered manager, at the time of the inspection visits. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The manager running the service at the time of the inspection was registered with the CQC on 28 September 2017.

People, staff and visitors to the service were kept as safe as possible because staff had been appropriately trained and were confident they knew how to protect themselves and the people in their care. Care staff were recruited via robust recruitment processes to ensure they were suitable to provide safe care to people. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. General risks and risks to individuals were identified and action was taken to reduce them. People were supported to take their medicines safely, at the right times and in the right amounts by trained and competent staff.

People were provided with highly individualised and effective care that fully respected their diversity, preferences and choices and effectively met their needs. They were supported and encouraged to make decisions and choices about their care. Staff upheld people’s legal rights with regard to decision making and choice.

People benefitted from living in an excellent environment which was designed for their comfort and to meet their needs. Staff ensured it was kept exceptionally clean and hygienic whilst it remained comfortable and homely. The atmosphere of the service was friendly, accepting and welcoming. These attitudes were modelled by the management and staff team who ensured everyone felt included and important.

People’s rights were protected by a management and staff team who understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005) exceptionally well. This legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s needs were met by a highly committed and caring staff team who worked exceptionally closely together in the best interests of the people they offered care to. All staff were passionate and highly knowledgeable about the specific aspects of care they provided. Staff built positive relationships with people and others who were important to them, as quickly as possible. People’s individuality and differences were recognised and respected and they were treated with kindness, respect and dignity at all times. Any special needs were taken into account and people were offered the appropriate care.

People were offered a large variety of well organised and meaningful activities which enhanced their lifestyle. They were encouraged to enjoy and participate in them by highly talented and skilled staff.

The service was exceptionally well-led by a manager who had been in post for approximately eight weeks and a deputy manager who had been in post approximately six weeks. The management team were described as approachable, supportive and highly effective. The service had a large number of ways to monitor and assess the quality of care they offered. Any shortfalls or impro