CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newhaven
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some risks were assessed and plans were in place, but fire drills, safeguarding training, medicines checks, infection control and incident investigations were not always managed properly.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. The report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors did observe staff speaking to people in a dignified and caring manner.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care planning did not consistently reflect people's goals, interests and aspirations. Relatives also wanted more involvement in care reviews and better communication about changes.
- Well-led?
- Inadequate
- Leadership and governance had widespread and significant shortfalls. The home lacked effective oversight of incidents, complaints, feedback and improvement work.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Requires Improvement overall, with Safe and Responsive also Requires Improvement and Well-led Inadequate; inspectors found weaknesses in governance, incident learning and person-centred support.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 21 and 29 July 2022. One inspector spoke with staff, relatives and a healthcare professional, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and records about how the home was run.
Inspectors found some good practice. Individual risks were assessed, communication needs were recorded, and staff were seen treating people with dignity. Relatives generally felt people were safe, and there were enough staff during the visits.
However, safety was not consistent. Problems included incomplete incident records, medicines storage checks, gaps in safeguarding and mental capacity training, and environmental issues such as mould and a sharp exposed edge. People were not always supported with their interests, goals or family involvement.
The biggest concern was leadership. Governance systems did not identify and fix problems effectively, incidents and complaints were not properly overseen, and relatives and staff were not regularly asked for feedback. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2018, to Requires Improvement.
Individual risk plans
People's health and wellbeing risks were assessed, with plans explaining how staff should support them safely.
“Risks relating to people's individual health and wellbeing had been assessed and plans were in place to mitigate known risks.” from the report
Communication records
Care records explained how people communicated their needs and feelings. Hospital passports also recorded communication preferences for healthcare professionals.
“People's care records detailed their preferred way of communicating.” from the report
Open visiting
There were no restrictions on visiting, and people were supported to receive visitors.
“There were no restrictions on visiting, and people living in the service were supported to have visitors.” from the report
Weak leadership and oversight
seriousThere was no service improvement plan, and governance systems did not reliably identify or address problems. The home also had no registered manager in post.
“There was no service improvement plan in place, therefore, there was no comprehensive oversight of the quality and safety of service being delivered.” from the report
Poor incident learning
seriousSome incidents were not recorded or fully investigated. The home did not consistently use accident and incident information to make improvements.
“Reports of incidents were not always completed, therefore, we could not be assured incidents had been investigated thoroughly and lessons learnt.” from the report
Person-centred activities
needs fixingCare records did not consistently identify people's goals and interests. One person's gardening and bird-feeding interests had not been supported for about a year.
“They had not been supported to do this, and we saw the garden hadn't been tended to.” from the report
Medicines storage checks
needs fixingThe temperature where medicines were stored was not recorded, creating a risk that medicines might not be stored correctly.
“Audits of medicines identified the temperature of where medicines were being kept was not recorded.” from the report
Limited family involvement
needs fixingRelatives were not regularly asked for feedback and wanted more involvement in care planning and reviews. They also reported poor communication about staff changes.
“People using the service and their relatives had not been asked for feedback on the service in the past year.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and when will the manager apply to become registered?
- 02What has been done to make sure all incidents are recorded, investigated and used to prevent similar events?
- 03How are medicines temperatures now checked and recorded, and how are medicine errors reviewed?
- 04How will residents and relatives be involved in care reviews, feedback surveys and decisions about changes at the home?
- 05What activities and personal goals will be offered to each resident, including interests such as gardening or feeding birds?
This inspection covered Safe, Responsive and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice, but testing plans for people who sometimes refused tests were not in place.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 18 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than giving a full service rating.
Inspectors found good practice in keeping people in contact with relatives, checking visitors, using protective equipment and keeping the home clean. They were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including visitors, distancing, admissions, protective equipment and cleaning.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured that the home was accessing testing for people and staff. There were no risk assessments for people who sometimes refused testing. The overall service and Safe rating were both recorded as inspected but not rated.
Keeping families in touch
People were supported to stay in contact with relatives through telephone and video calls, and garden visits at a safe distance.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives. This included speaking with their relatives via telephone or video-calling.” from the report
Visitor safety
The home had visitor procedures to reduce infection risks, including temperature checks and questions about symptoms and possible contact with COVID-19.
“Visitor's temperatures were taken upon arrival, and they were asked a series of questions to ensure they were not symptomatic or had come into contact with anyone who had COVID-19.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and uncluttered, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The service was clean throughout and free from clutter which made it easier for staff to clean.” from the report
Supporting people with masks
Staff adapted their approach when masks made some people anxious.
“One member of staff told us how they drew smiley faces on their masks to help people feel less anxious about staff wearing masks.” from the report
Testing risk assessments
needs fixingThere were no risk assessments for people who sometimes refused testing. The manager said they would contact the local authority for advice, and inspectors signposted resources.
“There were no risk assessments in place for people who sometimes refused testing.” from the report
- 01What risk assessments are now in place for people who sometimes refuse testing?
- 02What advice did the home receive from the local authority about people who refuse testing?
- 03How does the home currently access testing for people living there and for staff?
- 04How are visitor checks, protective equipment and cleaning arrangements kept up to date?
- 05How does the home help people who feel anxious about staff wearing masks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not a full service inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 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.
Every inspection of Newhaven
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 2012.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.