CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Newington Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. This included PPE, testing, social distancing, admissions, hygiene and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Newington Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 October 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control as part of a national review during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, supporting testing, following social distancing and shielding guidance, and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
The home supported pre-booked outdoor visits, provided PPE to visitors and residents, and had plans for managing a coronavirus outbreak. Staff also had regular breaks and access to counselling.
The service was inspected but not rated. The report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the quality of care in the other areas.
Visits and family contact
People who could follow social distancing guidance were supported to have pre-booked outdoor visits. Video calling was also offered for people whose relatives could not visit.
“People that were able to follow social distancing guidance were supported to have visits from their relatives through a pre booked timed system.” from the report
PPE and testing
The home provided PPE to visitors and residents and supported regular COVID-19 testing for staff and people using the service.
“The registered manager provided personal protective equipment (PPE) to visitors and residents.” from the report
Outbreak planning
There were risk assessments for people and staff in high-risk groups. The home had planned how to manage an outbreak, including zoning rooms and areas.
“The registered manager had planned how to manage an outbreak of COVID-19 in the home, Including zoning of rooms and areas.” from the report
Support for staff
Staff were supported with regular breaks and could use a counselling service arranged by the provider.
“Staff were supported with regular breaks. The provider had arranged for a counselling service which was available to staff as they needed it.” from the report
Further development identified
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain what specific changes were needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the infection prevention and control approach since inspectors signposted resources for development?
- 02How are visits currently arranged, and what alternatives are available when relatives cannot visit?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and how are the results managed?
- 04What is the current plan for managing a COVID-19 outbreak, including the use of separate zones?
- 05How are PPE supplies and safe use checked for visitors, residents and staff?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 2020 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a short-lived problem in controlled-drug records.
Inspectors visited on 6 and 11 April 2018 without giving notice. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, watched care, checked records and medicines, and looked around the home.
They found that people were safe and received personalised care. Staff were kind and respectful. Medicines, staffing, training, meals, healthcare and activities were generally well managed. The home was clean, tidy and well maintained.
There was one record-keeping problem with controlled drugs on the ground floor. The home acted immediately, replaced the book and corrected the overstocking. All five areas were rated Good. This was an improvement from the previous overall rating of Requires Improvement, with Safe and Responsive previously needing improvement.
Kind, respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and responding sensitively to their needs. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and important relationships.
“Staff were cheerful, kind and patient in their approach and had a good rapport with people.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found suitable staffing levels and saw staff respond to people's needs. People said call bells were answered quickly enough.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's life histories, communication needs and required support. People and relatives were involved in reviewing the plans.
“People's care was person centred.” from the report
Good support with health and food
People were referred to healthcare professionals when needed. Meals offered choices and included support for specialist diets.
“People were supported to maintain good health and have access to healthcare services.” from the report
Active management
The management team used audits, meetings and action plans to identify and address issues. Staff said they felt supported.
“Systems to monitor the quality of the service were in place.” from the report
Controlled-drug records
needs fixingOn the ground floor, the controlled-drug book was difficult to follow and some medicines were missing from its index. The home took immediate action, including starting a new book and reducing excessive stock.
“However on the ground floor the CD book index had not been used correctly it was hard to track the medicines through the book and some medicines within the book were not listed in the index at the front.” from the report
- 01How are controlled-drug records checked now, following the problem found on the ground floor?
- 02How do you make sure activities meet the needs and interests of each person, including people living with dementia?
- 03How often are staffing needs reviewed when people's care needs change?
- 04How are care plans reviewed with people and their relatives?
- 05How can families raise a concern, and how will they be kept informed about the response?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, including care, records, medicines, staffing, premises and management, and all five CQC questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 2018 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 Newington Court
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.