CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newland House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Risks such as falls, mobility problems and skin damage were assessed and managed, and there were enough staff to keep people safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. People were supported with their health, food and hydration needs, although some people thought the menu could be more varied.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy and dignity, supporting independence and explaining care during a hoist transfer.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs and choices. Complaints were recorded, investigated and closed, and people were supported with dignified end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had improved its audits and quality checks. The manager used audit results and feedback to plan further improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Newland House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since concerns about medicines and monitoring.
The unannounced inspection took place on 19 June 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, and checked care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were now managed safely, risks were recorded and managed, and there were enough staff to keep people safe.
The report says the home had improved since the June 2017 inspection. Earlier concerns about medicines, risk monitoring and quality checks had been addressed. Care plans were up to date, people's choices and dignity were respected, and complaints were investigated.
Medicines were safer
The earlier problems with medicines and administration records had been addressed. Inspectors found accurate records, secure storage and safe administration.
“On this inspection, in June 2018 we found people received their medicines safely, as prescribed and medicine records were completed accurately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and supportive. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy and dignity while providing personal care.
“People told us staff were kind and supportive.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were based on people's needs and preferences. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People had care plans in place that were based on assessments of their needs.” from the report
Improved management
The home had stronger quality checks and used the results to track improvements. People, relatives and staff were able to give feedback.
“The registered manager analysed the results of the audits and worked towards an ongoing action plan to ensure continuous improvement.” from the report
Good end-of-life support
The home recorded people's wishes for their final care and worked with health professionals to keep people comfortable and free from pain.
“People were supported to have a comfortable, dignified and pain free end of life.” from the report
Activities did not suit everyone
minorActivities were available and adapted to people's needs, but one person said there were not many people taking part and another did not find them suitable.
“We have the odd quiz but there are not a lot of people here so not many take part” from the report
- 01What food choices and menu changes have been made since the inspection?
- 02What activities are available for someone with my relative's interests and abilities?
- 03How is the home reducing its use of agency staff, and are familiar staff available for my relative?
- 04How are medicines records and risk assessments checked now that the earlier concerns have been addressed?
- 05How will my relative and our family be able to give feedback or raise a complaint?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five rating areas and the overall quality of the home; the report compares the findings with the previous inspection in June 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but serious gaps in medicines and risk management.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 15 June 2017. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care files, medicine records, staff files and other records.
People generally felt safe and praised the staff. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, good training, kind care, support with health and nutrition, personalised care plans and activities.
However, medicines were not always managed safely. Records and instructions were incomplete, and some people were not consistently supported in line with their risk plans. The service was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, with Good ratings for the other three areas.
There was one breach of Regulation 12 about safe care and treatment. The provider had to send CQC a report explaining what it would do, and CQC said it would check that the action was taken.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people with compassion and understanding. People's dignity, privacy and choices were respected.
“Throughout the inspection we saw staff supporting people with compassion and understanding.” from the report
Enough staff
The expected staffing numbers were met, including through temporary agency staff. Inspectors saw staff respond promptly and found they had time to support people.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Training and health support
Staff received training and regular supervision. People were supported to eat and drink, maintain their health and see health professionals when needed.
“People were supported to maintain good health and were supported to access healthcare services if needed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, likes, dislikes and important relationships. Staff used this information to provide more individual support.
“Assessments included information about people's histories, likes, dislikes and people who were important to them.” from the report
Medicines were not always managed safely
seriousInstructions for covert and topical medicines were incomplete, and records did not always match what staff had done. This created a risk that medicines might not be given as prescribed.
“People's medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Audits did not catch all problems
needs fixingSome audits identified improvements, but others missed issues with covert medicines and wellbeing checks. This contributed to the Requires Improvement rating for leadership.
“We however found a lack of consistency in how well the service was led and that some audits were not always effective.” from the report
Safety checks were not consistently recorded
needs fixingRecords did not show that emergency lighting and fire extinguisher checks had been completed as required. Management said it would address this immediately.
“There was no evidence of 'monthly fire extinguishers check' since February.” from the report
Expired DoLS authorisation
needs fixingOne person's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation had expired and a new application had not been submitted at the time of inspection. The manager said an application would be made immediately.
“However, we found that a DoLS authorisation had expired for one person and a new application had not been submitted.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the way covert medicines are authorised, prepared, recorded and checked?
- 02How do you now make sure topical medicines have clear instructions and body maps?
- 03How are you checking that care plans for fluids, weight, repositioning and falls are followed every day?
- 04Has the new manager completed CQC registration, and how is leadership now being monitored?
- 05What action was taken after the missing fire safety checks and the expired DoLS authorisation?
This was a planned inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, medicines, records, staffing, management and safety systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 July 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 Newland House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.