CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newlands
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- There were enough staff with the right skills, and medicines and infection control were managed well. However, recruitment checks were incomplete and hot, uncovered radiators had not been identified and made safe before the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health needs were assessed and staff had relevant training. People were supported with food, drink, health appointments, capacity decisions and best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, patience, dignity and respect. Staff understood how people communicated and supported their choices, privacy and cultural needs.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People took part in activities and kept in touch with relatives, but support plans did not consistently cover accessible information, people's goals, or developing and maintaining independence skills.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers were visible and approachable, and staff felt supported. However, audits did not identify recruitment and radiator risks, and there were not enough systems for people to give feedback or for records and support plans to be complete.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Newlands is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good support, but safety checks, recruitment and personalised planning needed improvement.
This was the first inspection of this newly registered care home. It was unannounced and took place on 1 and 3 February 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Caring. People received kind and compassionate care, staff understood their communication, and people were supported with health care, food, medicines, choices and advocacy.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found hot uncovered radiators, unsafe recruitment checks, limited plans for people's goals and independence, and weak systems for gathering people's views and checking quality. The provider was asked for an action plan and will be monitored.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, patient interactions. People were supported with dignity, privacy and respect.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff had training relevant to learning disability, dementia and behaviour that expressed emotions. Inspectors found staff knowledgeable about people's needs.
“People were supported by staff who had received the relevant training needed to support people.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were prescribed, given, recorded and stored safely. Staff followed best practice to avoid excessive medicines and supported people to make decisions where possible.
“Staff followed effective processes to assess and provide the support people needed to take their medicines safely.” from the report
Health and decision support
People were supported to access health checks and professionals. Staff recorded capacity assessments and involved relatives in best-interest decisions where appropriate.
“Staff ensured relatives were involved where appropriate in decisions which had been made on people's behalf.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousAll three staff files inspected had concerns. Employment histories were incomplete or inconsistent, and evidence about previous conduct was not always obtained.
“The provider had failed to ensure safe recruitment procedures were established and operated effectively.” from the report
Uncovered hot radiators
seriousSome radiators were hot and uncovered, creating a risk if someone fell against them. The manager arranged for covers after inspectors raised the issue.
“Action had not been taken to minimise the risk from these.” from the report
Goals and independence
needs fixingThere was no consistent individual plan to help people learn or maintain skills, and limited information about their wider goals and aspirations.
“There was a lack of consistent individualised plan to support people to learn new skills or maintain existing skills.” from the report
Accessible information
needs fixingThe home had not shown how support plans were made as accessible as possible for people. This was recorded as an area for improvement.
“there was no information on how staff made people's support plans as accessible to people as they could be.” from the report
People's feedback
needs fixingRelatives had given positive feedback, but inspectors found no clear system for people living in the home to give their views about the service.
“there were no records of an annual survey or meetings for people to voice their views.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousGovernance systems had not identified recruitment problems, radiator risks or gaps in records and support plans. This contributed to a breach of Regulation 17.
“Governance processes were not always effective to keep people safe and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
- 01Have all the hot radiators been covered, and how are environmental safety risks now checked?
- 02Have all staff recruitment files been reviewed and completed, including employment histories and checks about previous conduct?
- 03How will you record and review each person's goals, aspirations and plans for learning or maintaining independence skills?
- 04How can people living in the home give feedback in a way they understand, and when was this last collected?
- 05What changes have been made to make support plans and other information accessible to each person?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home, covering all five key questions, the premises and care provided, with additional checks of infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 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.
Every inspection of Newlands
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Requires improvement.
- March 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Requires improvementdown from OutstandingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 March 2020.
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.