CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newton Hall Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and control infections, including visitor screening, PPE, testing, hygiene and an up-to-date policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection, although people and relatives spoke positively about the care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed as a separate rating. Inspectors noted that infection-control leads had been appointed and guidance was shared with staff.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection-control arrangements and positive views of care.
The home provides accommodation and personal care for older people. At the inspection, 31 people were living there, with places for up to 34.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 March 2021. Inspectors looked at how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections, rather than carrying out a full inspection.
Inspectors were assured about visitor screening, distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, cleanliness and infection-control policies. People and relatives spoke positively about the care. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full quality rating.
Clear infection-control policies
The home had detailed policies for managing COVID-19 risks, and inspectors said these were clear and regularly updated.
“The provider had developed detailed policies and procedures to manage any risks relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
PPE and testing
Staff had suitable PPE and enough supplies. People living at the home and staff had regular COVID-19 testing.
“Staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and had access to adequate supplies.” from the report
Infection-control leadership
Infection-control leads carried out daily staff health checks and shared changes in national or local guidance.
“The registered manager had appointed infection control leads.” from the report
Positive views of care
Relatives and people living at the home spoke positively about the care and said they were happy.
“People receiving care also spoke positively about the care they received and told us they were happy.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened for symptoms before entering the home?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 03Who are the current infection-control leads, and how are daily staff health checks recorded?
- 04How often is the infection prevention and control policy reviewed and updated?
- 05How do you make sure staff have enough PPE and use it safely?
This was a targeted inspection of COVID-19 infection prevention and control measures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with two recommendations about medicines.
This was a comprehensive inspection over 31 January and 1 February 2019. One inspector reviewed seven care plans, training records, policies, medicines systems and quality checks. They spoke with people and staff, observed care, and considered information from other agencies.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, clean premises, suitable care plans, kind support and activities that reflected people's interests and choices.
There were two recommendations about medicines. The home was asked to check the accuracy of its medicines refrigerator thermometer and to record two signatures when medicines were disposed of. The home did not have a registered manager at the visit, but an application was in progress.
People felt safe
People said they trusted staff and could get help when needed. Inspectors found sufficient staff available during the visit.
“People told us that they felt safe with the staff team and trusted them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff spent time reassuring people and protected their privacy and dignity during personal care.
“Staff interactions with people who used the service were very caring and staff spent time talking to people in a reassuring manner.” from the report
Activities and choice
The home offered group activities, outings, spiritual activities and individual time for people who did not want to join groups.
“A meaningful programme of activities was in place with activities provided in-house and from the local community.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider used regular audits and gathered feedback from people, families, staff and professionals. Inspectors said suggestions were acted on.
“The registered provider had a series of effective audits in place to measure the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Medicines refrigerator checks
needs fixingTemperatures had been recorded at 8 degrees on two days before the inspection, and it was unclear whether the thermometer was accurate. Inspectors recommended testing it.
“We recommend that the accuracy of the refrigerator thermometer is tested to ensure that medicines are stored at ambient temperatures.” from the report
Medicines disposal records
needs fixingRecords for returned or unused medicines had only one signature and did not show that another person had witnessed the disposal. Inspectors recommended recording two signatures.
“We recommend that two signatures are recorded on medication disposal records to ensure that systems are accountable.” from the report
No registered manager at the visit
minorThe home had a manager, but that person was not yet registered with CQC. The registration process was underway during the inspection.
“The service did not have a registered manager.” from the report
- 01What action have you taken to test the medicines refrigerator thermometer, and how are temperatures now checked?
- 02How do you record and witness the disposal or return of unused medicines?
- 03Has the manager's registration with CQC now been completed?
- 04How would you tailor activities and one-to-one support if my relative did not want to join group activities?
- 05How do you monitor staffing levels when people's needs change?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with ratings given for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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 Newton Hall Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Newton Hall Residential Home →
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Newton Hall Residential Home →
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.