You are here

Newport Residential Care Limited Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at Newport Residential Care Limited. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

This inspection took place on 25 and 26 April 2017 and was unannounced. The home provides accommodation for up to 31 people, most of whom had mental health care needs. There were 31 people living at the home when we visited.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 home was split into two inter-connecting units. Previously, support staff in the main part of the home supported younger adults with mental health care needs and care staff in the lower part of the home supported older adults, some of whom were living with dementia. The provider had recently taken the decision to focus entirely on accommodating younger adults with mental health needs. As vacancies arose, these were gradually being filled by people with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, only three older people living with dementia were still being accommodated.

At our last inspection, in October 2015, we identified breaches of two regulations. Risks to people were not always managed appropriately; medicines were not always managed safely; and legislation designed to protect people’s rights was not always followed.

At this inspection we found action had been taken and there were no longer any breaches of regulation; however, some further improvement was still needed to help ensure people’s safety. The service had created new systems to gather additional information from external agencies about potential risks to people before they moved to the home. However, the information was not always accurate and staff had not made further enquiries to clarify inconsistencies. This meant the risk assessments were not always effective.

Other aspects of risk management were effective. Staff understood the factors that put people at risk of harm and people were involved in discussions about risk. A new fire alarm system had been installed to make it easier for staff to identify the source of a fire and this had reduced evacuation times during fire drills.

Medicines were managed safely and systems were in place to help ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment processes were followed.

People’s needs were met by staff who were trained and appropriately supported in their role. They were particularly skilled at supporting people with complex mental health needs and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights.

People praised the standard of care and the level of support their received. They enjoyed the meals and said their dietary needs were met. When people needed support to eat, they received this in a dignified and supportive way. People were supported to access healthcare services when needed and to attend hospital appointments.

People were cared for with kindness and compassion. Staff created a calm atmosphere and interacted with people in a positive, supportive way. They spoke about people warmly and demonstrated a detailed knowledge of them as individuals.

Staff encouraged people to remain as independent as possible. They respected their privacy and dignity. They involved then in decisions about the care and support they received.

People were encouraged to make choices about every aspect of their daily lives. They received personalised care and support that met their needs. Staff understood the signs that could indicate a person’s mental health was deteriorating and responded promptly by providing additional support.

Care plans provided staff with detailed information about how they should support people in an individualised way and were reviewed regularly. For peopl

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was not always safe.

Inconsistencies in risk management information provided by external professionals were not always clarified to enable staff to conduct effective risk assessments. However, improvements had been made to the management of risk and staff took action to keep people safe.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when needed. People felt safe at the home. Staff knew how to identify, prevent and report incidents of abuse.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and appropriate recruitment procedures were followed.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights and liberty.

People received effective care from staff who were suitably trained and supported in their roles.

People praised the quality of the food and their nutritional needs were met.

People were supported to access health care services, including mental health services, when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was caring.

People were cared for with kindness and compassion.

Staff created a relaxed atmosphere and interacted with people in a positive and supportive way.

People were treated with respect and their dignity was protected. Staff did not enter people’s rooms without their express permission.

People were involved in planning the care and support they received.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs. Care plans contained comprehensive information and were reviewed regularly.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices about every aspect of their lives. Staff responded promptly when people’s needs changed.

People had access to a range of meaningful activities. The provider sought and acted on feedback from people.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 June 2017

The service was well-led.

People enjoyed living at the home and felt it was run well.

Staff were happy in their work and felt supported by management. They demonstrated a shared commitment to achieving the best possible outcomes for people

There was a caring and open culture in which people were valued.

Quality assurance processes were effective and there was a development plan in place to further enhance the service.