CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newhaven Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient and medicines were managed safely. The home was clean and equipment was checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's nutritional and health needs were met, staff received training and support, and staff sought consent before providing care. Inspectors asked for people's assessments to be dated and signed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. People were involved in care decisions and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences and communication needs. The home offered activities, supported relationships and had a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had audits, meetings, surveys and action plans to monitor quality. Inspectors noted that the registration certificate needed an update.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a need to date and sign assessments and update the registration certificate.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 September 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, clean surroundings and care plans that reflected people's needs and preferences.
People were described as safe, respected and involved in decisions. They had access to health professionals, suitable meals, activities and support to maintain their independence. Inspectors noted that some assessments needed to be dated and signed, and that the registration certificate needed updating.
Safe staffing and risk support
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw that risks were assessed without being unnecessarily restrictive. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them well, respected their privacy and involved them in decisions about their care.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, routines and preferences. Bedrooms were personalised with items from people's previous homes.
“The care plans contained people's likes and dislikes, specific routines and preferences for the gender of care worker.” from the report
Activities and family contact
The home offered activities and outings based on people's views. It also had a tea room where people could meet relatives.
“There was an activity programme, which was produced following consultation with people.” from the report
Food and health support
Inspectors found that people's nutritional needs were met and that health professionals were involved when needed. People said they liked the food.
“People's nutritional needs were met, and any support required was detailed in care plans and risk assessments.” from the report
Assessments needed completing properly
needs fixingInspectors discussed the need for people's assessments to be dated and signed. This was a record-keeping shortfall, although the overall Effective rating remained Good.
“We discussed with the registered manager, the need to ensure assessments were dated and signed.” from the report
Registration certificate update
minorThe home knew that its registration certificate needed updating and said it would address this.
“The registered manager was aware there was an update required to the provider's registration certificate and was to address this.” from the report
- 01Have all assessments been dated and signed, and how do you check this now?
- 02Has the required update to the registration certificate been completed?
- 03How would you meet my relative's specific health, communication and nutritional needs?
- 04What activities and outings would be suitable for my relative, and how are people's suggestions used?
- 05How do you support people to remain independent, including with medicines where this is safe?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Newhaven Residential Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some gaps in risk planning and quality checks.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 22 February 2017. They spoke with people living there, visitors and staff, observed care and reviewed four care plans and other records. There were 22 people living in the home, which could support up to 25 people.
The inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems and suitable staff training. People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care was planned with them, they had access to activities and health professionals, and they knew how to raise concerns.
There were some weaknesses. Risk assessments did not always have plans to reduce risks. Accidents and safeguarding concerns were not reviewed through a structured process. Menus were not displayed, and quality audits were not always analysed. All five areas were rated Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as approachable and caring. Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that staff protected people's dignity and choices.
“People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff in the home took time to speak with the people they were supporting.” from the report
Enough staff
The staffing arrangements were based on people's needs. There was also a plan for short-term absences.
“There was a contingency plan in place for short term staff absences such as sickness and holidays.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were locked away, records were accurate and staff had received medicines training. Staff supported people according to their abilities.
“Medicines were kept in a locked area. Staff had to record on their handover records the person they had handed the medicines keys too, to ensure safe keeping of medicines.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's health needs, preferences, risks and wishes. People were involved in planning their care and were supported to make choices.
“The wording in the care plans showed the care plans were written with people, as opposed to them and their views being recorded.” from the report
Access to healthcare
Staff arranged appointments and worked with health and social care professionals. Records showed the outcomes of appointments were followed up.
“There was evidence in the care plans that staff had arranged visits and sought advice from a number of health and social care professionals, as well as family and friends.” from the report
Risk plans were incomplete
seriousRisks were assessed, but plans were not always put in place to reduce them. The care plans were being changed to a new format at the time of inspection.
“Risks associated with people's care needs were assessed, but plans were not put in place to minimise risk in order to keep people safe.” from the report
Incidents were not formally reviewed
seriousThe manager did not have a structured process to check accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns for further action. Lessons were still shared with staff in meetings.
“There was no structured process in place for reviewing accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns.” from the report
Quality checks were not always analysed
needs fixingThe home carried out several audits, but the results were not always analysed. Meetings where people could give their views also happened infrequently.
“An analysis had not always been completed on those audits, but where specific action was required this had been given to staff at their meetings.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every identified risk has a clear plan to reduce it?
- 02How are accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns reviewed, and how are lessons shared?
- 03How do residents see the available meal choices before deciding what to eat?
- 04Who is responsible for activities now that there was no activity co-ordinator at the inspection?
- 05How often are residents' views gathered, and what actions have followed from recent feedback?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with an overall rating and a rating of Good for each question. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 2017 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 Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2010.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.