Newfield Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Accidents, incidents, and complaints were managed effectively, with appropriate investigations undertaken where required. Learning from these events were shared with staff and used to inform and strengthen service delivery and ongoing quality improvements. Leaders carry out monthly home learning meetings with staff where events are discussed, concerns are highlighted and learning is identified. Actions are then created and improvements monitored in the next monthly meeting.

The provider evidenced how they learnt lessons from incidents involving medicines, safeguarding, and falls.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The provider had robust systems in place to ensure safe transitions and continuity of care and completed re-admission assessments involving people, relatives, and professionals. There was evidence of partnership working with GP’s, District Nurses, and the Local Authority to support ongoing transition processes. Joint working continued after the transition process was completed to ensure care was joined up and safe.

Staff shared information about people’s needs through daily handovers, care record updates, and electronic messages.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People were protected from the risk of abuse through effective safeguarding systems and processes. These supported the timely identification, reporting, monitoring and management of safeguarding concerns. Where concerns had been identified they had been reported to appropriate agencies such as the Local Authority and CQC. Staff had completed relevant safeguarding training and demonstrated an understanding of their responsibilities in keeping people safe.

Mental Capacity Act 2005 assessments, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were in place and appropriate, where required.

Where people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) the service had made applications to the local authority and there was clear monitoring in place. DoLS ensure if a person is restricted in a way that deprives them of their liberty in a care home, it is only done when it is in their best interests, is necessary for their safety, and all other options have been considered. There was a tracker in place which was monitored by the provider.  

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People told us they felt safe living at Newfield Lodge. People were supported to maintain their independence and were encouraged to participate in activities that involved an element of risk such as a walking club, dancing, and exercise classes. Risk assessments were in place and appropriate and staff were available for the activities to ensure people remained safe.

Risk assessments covered all aspects of people’s daily living and health needs and were reviewed regularly with updates and changes made when needed.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Effective audits and checks were in place for equipment such as slings, hoists, and lift. However, we noted while on-site on 2 occasions when the fire alarm was activated, 2 different doors within the home did not shut correctly to create efficient compartmentalisation zones. This meant that during a fire, these doors would not be effective in stopping the spread of a fire.

While leaders completed frequent environmental audits, they had not been fully effective in identifying the risks found during the assessment. This meant that the providers arrangements did not always detect risk and prevent people from potential harm.

The provider responded promptly to our feedback and took immediate steps to address the concerns and reduce the risk identified.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

People were supported by a consistent staff team who were trained and knew them well. We observed there was enough staff on shift to support people safely and staff completed training relevant to their role. The provider maintained effective oversight and ensured any gaps in knowledge or area of concern were addressed through appropriate training for staff.

Staff were recruited safely and all relevant check were completed prior to commencing employment. Staff completed an induction process, and regular supervisions were facilitated for all staff members.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was clean, tidy, and free of odours. Cleaning staff were visible throughout the home completing cleaning duties. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available for staff to use when needed. Staff were observed wearing PPE for activities where it was required.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were stored correctly on each floor of the home, and all stock levels were correct. Temperatures were monitored daily to ensure medicines were kept in safe environmental conditions as per manufacturer instructions.

Body maps were in place for people who were prescribed topical creams to ensure staff knew where to apply these.

There were clear protocols in place for staff to support people with ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines. These detailed when these medicines should be administered.

Controlled drugs, which require extra storage and documentation were checked regularly and audited regularly by the provider. All stocked balances were checked and correct and each check and audit showed 2 staff signatures.