CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newbrook
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, visiting, cleaning and managing outbreaks. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe and well managed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 8 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, including the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, managed visits, followed social distancing rules and kept its infection control policy up to date. The home was clean and hygienic, with cleaning schedules and infection control audits.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the full range of care.
Infection control
The provider regularly reviewed its infection control policies and discussed pandemic concerns with staff and residents.
“The provider had continually reviewed their infection prevention and control (IPC) policies.” from the report
PPE and training
Staff had infection control training and were seen using the correct protective equipment and following good practice.
“Staff completed IPC training and were observed to be wearing the correct personal protective equipment (PPE) and following best practice.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with cleaning products, schedules and regular infection control audits.
“The home was clean and hygienic throughout. Staff had access to cleaning products and cleaning schedules were in place.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visitors had to take a lateral flow test and were given the required protective equipment when entering the home.
“Visitors needed to take a lateral flow test and were provided with the necessary PPE upon entry to the home.” from the report
Support during the pandemic
Inspectors saw positive interactions between staff and residents, and staff had worked together to support wellbeing.
“Staff had worked as a team to help promote people's wellbeing throughout the pandemic. We observed positive interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 8 February 2022?
- 02How do you manage staffing pressures when COVID-19 or other illness affects staff availability?
- 03What cleaning schedules and infection control audits are currently used?
- 04What testing and protective equipment arrangements apply to visitors and staff now?
- 05How do you support residents' wellbeing when infection control rules change?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 2022 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, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
Inspectors visited on 2 April 2019. They spoke with staff and managers, observed care, and reviewed care records, staff files and other records. One person declined to speak with them.
The home supported two people with learning disabilities, although it could support up to three. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their routines, activities, meals and care.
Risks and medicines were managed safely. There were enough staff, staff had suitable training, and care plans had been rewritten and updated. The home also supported people's independence and access to the community.
All five areas were rated Good. The previous inspection in December 2018 was rated Requires Improvement, so this report says the home had improved in all areas and that those improvements had been sustained.
Choice and independence
People had control over daily routines, activities and meals. Staff supported them to build skills and take positive risks in the community.
“People had maximum control over all aspects of daily life.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
Risks were reviewed and medicines were administered by trained staff whose competence had been checked. Medicine records were well completed.
“Overall medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well, listened to their individual ways of communicating and respected their privacy.
“Staff had developed good positive relationships with people and were able to confide in them about anything that was causing them distress.” from the report
Improved care planning
Care plans had been rewritten and were detailed and person-centred. They included guidance about what to do if care or support went wrong.
“These were written to a high standard and were very detailed and person centred.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors found that earlier improvements had been sustained.
“At this inspection we found the service had improved in all areas and improved to Good.” from the report
No registered manager yet
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. An application had been made and was awaiting an interview, so ask who is legally responsible for the home now.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post, however they had applied to become registered and was waiting an interview.” from the report
Activities were still basic for one person
minorA new activity programme had been introduced for someone who did not usually engage, but inspectors said the activities were basic. Ask how this programme has developed.
“These were rather basic but flexible depending on people's individual preferences on each day.” from the report
Easy-read information being developed
minorThe home provided easy-read information, but the management team was still improving some policies and documents while pictures were being produced.
“The management team was working on improving the easy read policy's and documentations for people once all pictures had been produced.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for the home while the registered manager application is being processed?
- 02How have the activities for people who find it difficult to engage developed since this inspection?
- 03Are all care plans still detailed, current and personalised?
- 04Are the easy-read policies and documents now complete and available in the formats people need?
- 05How are people supported to manage their own medicines and build independence?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; inspectors reviewed two people's care records and spoke with staff and managers. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 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 Newbrook
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 February 2014.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Wakefield
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.