CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newlands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements had improved. People and relatives had raised concerns about staff turnover and agency use, and staff said staffing was sometimes tight when needs had increased.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and induction, including agency staff. People were supported with food, health appointments and referrals to other professionals when their needs changed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff understood people's preferences, anxieties and communication needs, and supported independence and privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people were involved in reviews and decisions about their care. People had access to activities, college and community opportunities, although further work was needed on end-of-life care planning.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved leadership, teamwork and management systems. Regular audits and visits were used to identify risks and track improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and clear improvements, but staffing and end-of-life planning still needed attention.
The inspection took place in two parts. The first started on 08 October 2021 and was announced. An unannounced visit followed on 10 November 2021. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, and checked care, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home supported five people at the time, with space for up to eight adults with learning disabilities, autism or mental health needs. Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found people were treated with kindness, had personalised care plans, received their medicines safely and were supported with health care, food, activities and community access.
People and relatives had concerns about staff turnover and the use of agency workers. Inspectors also found that staffing could be tight at busy times, particularly when people needed appointments, college or community activities. The manager had recruited new staff, used consistent agency staff and asked the local authority to review funding for people whose needs had increased.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement in August 2019. Improvements included the environment, cleanliness, care planning, access to health appointments and end-of-life conversations. Further work was still needed to develop end-of-life care plans with people and their families.
Risk management
People had personal safety plans and staff understood how to reduce risks while supporting independence.
“Risks to people were assessed, regularly reviewed and managed well to ensure their safety and promote their independence.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans explained people's individual needs, preferences and the support they wanted. Staff also had quick-reference daily routines.
“People's care plans were personalised to reflect their specific needs, how they wanted to be supported and what was important to them” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about how staff treated them. Inspectors observed kindness, respect and compassion.
“Staff were observed treating people with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had improved its environment, cleanliness, care planning, health support and management systems since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Staffing and agency use
needs fixingPeople and relatives preferred consistent staff and raised concerns about staff turnover and agency workers. Staff also said staffing numbers were not always enough when several people needed support at once.
“People and their relatives shared concerns about turn-over of staff and use of agency.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingSome progress had been made, but the manager said more work was needed to involve people and families in full end-of-life care, support and treatment plans.
“The registered manager acknowledged further work was needed to engage with people and their families to develop end of life care, support and treatment plans” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff are currently in post, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff when people need appointments, college or community activities at the same time?
- 03Has the local authority reviewed funding and staffing for people whose needs have increased?
- 04How are people and their families being involved in end-of-life care and treatment planning?
- 05How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's daily routines, communication needs and anxiety triggers?
This was a planned inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, with an announced first part and an unannounced visit on 10 November 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 December 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.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and knowledgeable staff, but safety, records, activities and management needed significant improvement.
The inspection took place on 27 June 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, two staff members and managers. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management documents.
The home was not always safe. The environment was dirty and some fixtures were unsafe, although managers acted immediately on the issues found. Staff training had improved, but health needs, care plans, activities and complaints were not always managed well.
Staff knew people well and were described as kind. However, people had limited access to activities and the local community. The home had a new manager, who was starting new systems, but these were not yet fully in place.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, although caring and responsive had fallen from Good.
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Staff knew people well and adapted support when people's mental health needs changed. People described staff as kind.
“Staff were very attentive and kind. People told us, "They are very nice, I like them.” from the report
Improved staff training
Training and induction had improved since the previous inspection. Staff received extra training linked to changing needs, including dementia awareness.
“The service had improved its training and introduction for existing staff since the previous inspection.” from the report
Support with health needs
Staff worked with a range of health and social care professionals and supported people to attend appointments.
“Staff worked closely with a variety of different health and social care persons to ensure that the person receiving personal care needs were met.” from the report
Good understanding of safeguarding
Staff understood abuse risks and how to report concerns. The inspection found that safeguarding notifications were appropriate and action had been taken.
“Staff had a good understanding of what contributes abuse of vulnerable adults and how they would escalate concerns.” from the report
Positive new management
The new manager was open about the home's problems and was beginning to introduce stronger oversight and more person-centred systems.
“They were fully aware of their current position, improvements they had made, and improvements still needed but remained enthusiastic and committed.” from the report
Dirty and unsafe environment
seriousParts of the home were heavily soiled, and some bedroom fixtures were not secure. This created an increased risk to people's safety, although managers acted immediately on the issues found.
“Doors, light pullies, kitchen floors were heavily soiled in dirt and dust in places.” from the report
Too few activities
needs fixingPeople did not always have a variety of daily activities or enough access to the local community. Staff workload limited the time available for social support.
“Staff were usually busy with care tasks, cleaning and supporting people to attend appointments.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans did not consistently explain people's preferences, needs and independence support in a person-centred way. Staff could often describe the support they gave, but this was not recorded clearly enough.
“Care plans were not always recorded in a person-centred way; however, staff were able to tell us in detail how they carried out person centred care for people and we witnessed this in practice.” from the report
Complaints were not recorded
needs fixingThe complaints process existed, but complaints had not been formally documented or investigated. Managers reviewed the concerns after the inspection.
“The service had a complaints procedure in place, however, complaints had not been formally documented or investigated.” from the report
Health screening decisions not recorded
needs fixingWhen people refused routine health screening, staff did not record the discussions or how information had been explained to support an informed choice.
“Staff had not recorded the discussion around refusals or documented how information about health screenings for people with learning disabilities had been provided to make an informed choice.” from the report
End of life wishes not explored
needs fixingThe home had not explored how to discuss death and dying with people who had learning disabilities. Inspectors recommended reviewing best practice.
“Staff had not explored the end of life care needs for the individual receiving care due to concerns about how this would affect their wellbeing.” from the report
- 01What has been done to complete the planned refurbishment and keep the home clean and safe every day?
- 02How are people's activities, holidays and access to the local community being increased, including for people who feel anxious about going out?
- 03Have all care plans been rewritten in a person-centred way, and how do you check that staff follow them?
- 04How are refusals of health screening now discussed, supported and recorded?
- 05How are complaints formally recorded, investigated and fed back to people and their families?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, but CQC reported in detail on one person's regulated personal care experience because not everyone at the home received personal care. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 August 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.
Every inspection of Newlands
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.