You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

Newstone House provides accommodation and nursing and personal care for up to 59 older people, including people living with dementia. There were 53 people living there when we visited.

At the last inspection in January 2015 a breach of legal requirements was found. Some people required restrictions on their liberty to keep them safe. We saw the correct processes were not always carried out which meant people’s legal and human rights were not being upheld. Following that inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. At our focused inspection on the 11 August 2015, we found that the provider had followed their plan and legal requirements had been met.

There was a registered manager in post, who has worked in this role since January 2017. 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.

Staff had a good rapport with the people they supported. People appeared comfortable with staff and able to ask for their support. Staff demonstrated they knew people well. They were able to tell us about the people they supported including their history, family, likes and dislikes. This demonstrated staff knew people well and listened to their preferences.

Safe systems were in place to protect people from the risks associated with medicines. Medicines were managed in accordance with best practice. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. People were supported to access external health professionals, when required, to maintain their health and wellbeing.

People’s risk had been assessed and measures were in place to minimise the risk to the person.

Staff and records confirmed that all staff received training in how to recognise and report abuse. Staff spoken with had a clear understanding of how they kept people safe. They were confident any concerns reported would be fully investigated and action would be taken to make sure people were safe.

People were offered a varied choice of meals including soft textured food. Staff were clear about who required support to eat and when. We observed the midday meal being served on the ground floor and upper floor. Although people had a positive experience on the ground floor, people on the upper floor, did not have the same experiences. Improvement were in place to ensure people had positive experiences regardless of where they ate.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had a clear knowledge and understanding of their personal needs, likes and dislikes. Care plans were personalised to each individual and contained information to assist staff to provide care in a manner that respected their needs and individual wishes. People living at Newstone House told us they were happy with the care and support provided.

People were supported by staff who had undergone an induction programme which gave them the basic skills to care for people safely. In addition to completing induction training new staff had opportunities to shadow more experienced staff. This enabled them to get to know people and how they liked to be cared for. People told us they felt safe at the home, One person said, “I feel very safe, the staff are always on hand if I need them.”

Most people who lived at the home were able to make decisions about what care or treatment they received. Where people lacked capacity to make some decisions, the staff were clear about their responsibilities to follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) when making decisions for people in their best interests.

The service remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Care and support was personalised to each person which ensured they were able to make c

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

The service was safe

There were systems to make sure people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

There were enough staff to keep people safe.

People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who were competent to do so.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

The service was effective

Staff had the skills and knowledge to effectively support people.

People received a diet in line with their needs and wishes.

People had access to appropriate healthcare professionals to make sure they received the care and treatment they required in a timely way.

The service acted in line with current legislation and guidance where people lacked the mental capacity to consent to aspects of their care or treatment.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

The service was caring.

People were cared for by kind and caring staff who went out of their way to help people and promote their well-being.

People were always treated with respect and dignity.

People, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care and support was responsive to their needs and personalised to their wishes and preferences.

A programme of meaningful activities was in place which enabled people to maintain links with the local community.

People knew how to make a complaint and said they would be comfortable to do so.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 June 2017

The service was well led.

The leadership and supervision arrangements for staff ensured staff were fully supported.

The provider’s quality assurance system operated effectively in identifying and making changes to address areas for improvement.

People and their relatives told us the management and staff were open and approachable and they were generally complimentary about the service.