Newfield Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Processes were in place to ensure people's needs were accurately assessed prior to admission into the home. Care and support plans represented individuals' health and wellbeing needs and ensured that staff had access to updated information. Leaders used a resident of the day systems to review care plans and risk assessments. However, we noted while reviewing care plans that due to using a live system to assess an induvial MUST score, and this score changing automatically, it did not always match what was stated in the persons care plan after the change as that needed to be amended manually. When we raised this concern to leaders, they were proactive in amending the care plan and putting a system in place to reduce the risk of this happening again.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Nationally recognised tools such as MUST were used to identify deterioration and health concerns were escalated appropriately to the relevant services. These were regularly reviewed and updated appropriately for each person.

People had enough to eat and drink and individual’s dietary requirement needs were met. People gave positive feedback about the food including “It’s really nice” and “There’s always alternatives if you don’t like anything there.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff demonstrated they worked effectively as a team and with external professionals such as GP’s and District Nurses to ensure care was joined up and meets people’s needs. Information was readily available for other professionals when needed. Leaders documented professional involvement and updated care plans and risk assessments when needs and recommendations changed

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice, and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to maintain their health, wellbeing, and independence. People were checked regularly during GP rounds however; staff did contact healthcare professionals if people’s health deteriorated. Staff understood people’s individual choice and preferences when supporting with health concerns, as this was recorded in care plans and staff checked preferences by talking to people.

People were supported to keep active and maintain their mobility through regular activities such as walking and exercising. We observed a dancing exercise class while visiting the home – staff encouraged people to join in.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Leaders monitored falls, skin integrity, medicines, and changes in people’s health needs. They involved relevant healthcare professionals when required. For example, one person receiving dialysis 3 times a week expressed they felt this was too much as it was having a negative impact on them due to feeling tired. The home then discussed this with relevant professionals, and the consistency was changed to 2 times a week instead. Staff continue to monitor for any negative impact this may have on the person. This shows that staff recognised when care was not meeting a person's needs and took action to improve the outcome.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The home operated in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), ensuring decisions were made lawfully and in people’s best interests when they lacked capacity to make specific decisions.

Staff knew people well and understood the principles of the MCA and that mental capacity could change and is time and decision specific. This meant that staff supported people to make their own choices and promote their rights, wishes and preferences.