CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newbridge House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place. This included safe visiting, social distancing, protective equipment, testing, hygiene, admissions and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were safe during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors visited the home on 22 December 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices because of the COVID-19 outbreak.
They were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreaks safely. People who tested positive for COVID-19 self-isolated in line with guidance.
The home also kept families in contact through garden visits, a visiting pod, social media, video and telephone calls. Staff were supported during periods of anxiety.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Visitor safety
Visitors had their temperatures checked, used hand sanitiser and could use protective equipment. Inspectors were assured that visitors were protected from catching and spreading infections.
“Visitors to the home had their temperatures taken prior to entering the home and sanitised their hands.” from the report
Keeping families in touch
When visits were restricted, the home used garden visits, a visiting pod, social media, video and telephone calls. Relatives were kept informed about their family member's wellbeing.
“The management team had maintained regular contact with relatives to keep them informed about the wellbeing of their family member.” from the report
Staff support
Staff were supported by the management team during periods of anxiety, including regular wellbeing phone calls.
“Staff were supported by the management team through periods of anxiety with regular phone calls to check on their wellbeing.” from the report
Outbreak controls
People who tested positive for COVID-19 self-isolated. Clinical waste and laundry were handled in line with government guidance.
“People who had tested positive for Covid-19 self-isolated in line with current guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently managed, and what happens if there is an infection outbreak?
- 02How often are people using the home and staff tested, and how are the results managed?
- 03How are people who test positive for COVID-19 isolated and supported?
- 04What arrangements are currently used to keep residents in contact with their families?
- 05How are staff supported if they are worried or anxious during an outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some records and mealtime practices to improve.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 15 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting GP. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, accidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home provided accommodation and personal care for up to 30 older people, including some people living with dementia. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew them well. Care was personalised, activities were available, and end-of-life care was described as especially compassionate.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection on 20 September 2016. Inspectors identified some areas to improve, but did not report any legal breaches.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood how to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, accidents and incidents were reviewed.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Kind, personal care
Staff knew people's needs and preferences well. Inspectors saw positive relationships and support that promoted dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were cared for and supported by staff who knew their needs, personalities, likes and dislikes well.” from the report
Compassionate end-of-life care
The home worked with healthcare professionals and supported people's wishes at the end of life. Families were given care, reassurance and space.
“People and relatives received compassionate, kind and loving care at the end stage of their life.” from the report
Strong leadership
Inspectors found an open and positive culture. Staff felt listened to, worked well together and believed their views mattered.
“There was strong leadership at the service and a 'family feel' atmosphere.” from the report
Dementia-friendly surroundings
Parts of the building were adapted for people living with dementia. These included clear signs, themed areas and a sensory garden.
“Some areas of the home had been designed, decorated and had signage to meet the needs of people living with dementia.” from the report
Medicine labelling
minorMedicine management was generally safe, but some systems and records did not always follow best practice. Eye drops were not always labelled with their expiry date.
“However, some of the systems and recording did not always follow best practice, such as applying labels to all eye drops to show the expiry date.” from the report
Mealtime arrangements
needs fixingOne person's pureed meal was blended together rather than kept separate, so they could not taste the different foods. Lunch could also run close to the early 4pm tea.
“This meant the person would not be able to taste the different foods they were eating and is not considered good practice.” from the report
Life history records
minorSome care plans did not fully record people's past lives, interests and hobbies. The home agreed to add more detail so staff could understand people in context.
“However, for some people there was limited information on people's history and their lives before they came to live at Newbridge House.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the labelling and expiry-date checks for eye drops since the inspection?
- 02How do you now serve pureed meals, and can different foods be kept separate where a person wants to taste them?
- 03How do you make sure there is enough time between lunch and the 4pm tea?
- 04How are people's life histories, interests and hobbies recorded and used in their care?
- 05What activities are available for people living with dementia, and what changes have been made since the inspection?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the premises and care provided were both looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Newbridge House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 February 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Wolverhampton
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,230 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.