CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newton House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found unsafe diabetes care arrangements, problems with PRN medicines and medical advice that had not been followed. Staffing, PPE use and cleanliness also needed improvement, although recruitment checks and several environmental safety checks were in place.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- There were significant gaps in staff training and the induction did not follow Care Certificate standards. Care planning, food, healthcare support and work with other professionals were positive, but mental capacity records and oral healthcare arrangements needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in their care, given choices and supported to become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported with activities, family contact, communication, religious needs and cultural events. People could raise concerns through meetings and the complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider's checks did not identify several safety, training, staffing, infection control and mental capacity problems. There was a positive staff culture, but governance and oversight were not robust enough.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but important safety, staffing and management checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 and 16 March 2023. The inspection team spoke with nine people, staff and a visiting health professional. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, staffing information, training records and management checks.
People generally said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were kind, respectful and supported people's independence, choices, cultural needs and contact with family. People were also supported to take part in community activities, religious practices and plans for more independent living.
However, staffing levels were not enough for all care, cleaning and laundry tasks, although the home increased staffing during the inspection. Inspectors found gaps in staff training, unsafe diabetes and medicines arrangements, weak infection control and poor provider oversight. The overall rating changed from Good in 2019 to Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and supportive. Inspectors saw staff showing empathy, reassurance and respect.
“The staff are amazing, always available, always caring.” from the report
Personalised support
People had choices about their care, activities and routines. Their communication, religious and cultural needs were supported.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their family.” from the report
Positive partnership working
Staff worked with health and social care professionals and supported people to achieve improved outcomes.
“Staff have developed a positive and trusting relationship with the person, their physical appearance has greatly improved, and they are full of smiles” from the report
Health and medicines risks
seriousStaff giving insulin had not completed annual training or competency checks, and there was no insulin protocol. PRN medicine records and follow-up of medical advice were also not safe enough.
“Risks had not been sufficiently assessed and measures to mitigate risks had not been completed.” from the report
Staff training gaps
seriousThe training record showed significant gaps across subjects. The induction did not follow Care Certificate standards, putting people at risk of unsafe or ineffective support.
“Staff had not received sufficient training, learning or development.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingThere were not enough staff to provide care and complete cleaning and laundry tasks. The home increased staffing immediately after this was identified.
“We concluded staffing levels were not enough to complete all these required tasks.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingStaff did not always change PPE between areas, increasing the risk of cross-contamination. Some parts of the home were not clean or hygienic.
“We were not assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousInternal audits had not identified several problems with safety, training, staffing, infection control and mental capacity records. The provider was considering using an external company for compliance checks.
“A lack of provider oversight and leadership had a negative impact.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure staff giving insulin are trained annually, assessed as competent and supported by a clear diabetes protocol?
- 02How have you checked that PRN medicines are given for the correct reason and that medical recommendations are followed?
- 03What staffing levels are now in place for care, cleaning and laundry, including people's additional commissioned hours?
- 04Which staff training gaps have been completed, including mental health, moving and handling, oral healthcare and end of life care?
- 05What independent or internal audits now check medicines, infection control, staff training, staffing levels and mental capacity records?
This inspection assessed all five key questions and included infection prevention and control; the report compares these ratings with the previous inspection in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 April 2023 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 2019
Newton House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records and training issues to improve.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 March 2019. One inspector spoke with people using the home, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, staffing, medicines, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were kind, medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean.
Inspectors found that people received personalised support and were helped to stay active, attend college and places of worship, and use local facilities. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in 2016, so the rating was unchanged.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff knew how to protect them from harm. Staffing was flexible, with extra staff available when needed.
“There are always staff here if you need them. We are never left alone.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw good relationships between staff and people. Staff supported people's dignity, independence, culture and religious beliefs.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They knocked before entering people's rooms and addressed people politely and courteously.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences and supported them to take part in activities, education, outings and community life.
“Each person had a pictorial care plan showing the activities they enjoyed so staff could support them with these.” from the report
Good food and health support
People and relatives praised the food. Inspectors found that nutritional needs were monitored and healthcare professionals were involved when needed.
“The food is very, very good. We have meat, fish and vegetarian dishes.” from the report
People's views were included
People and relatives were involved in care planning and could comment on how the home was run. Residents' meetings were followed by staff meetings so suggestions could be acted on.
“People were invited to monthly residents' meetings which we saw advertised in dining room.” from the report
One risk assessment needed updating
needs fixingInspectors found that one person's risk assessment about distressed behaviour did not give staff all the information they needed. The registered manager said it would be reviewed and updated.
“One person's risk assessment for distressed behaviour needing improvement to ensure staff had the information they needed to support the person.” from the report
Equality information was incomplete
needs fixingSome assessment documents did not record people's protected characteristics under the Equality Act. The registered manager said this would be updated.
“Assessments documentation needed up-dating to ensure the protected characteristics under the Equality Act were considered and recorded.” from the report
Training format was under review
minorStaff said they preferred taught training because it allowed more discussion and questions. The manager said staff training would be reviewed to make sure it was suitable.
“Staff said they preferred taught training as it gave them more opportunities to discuss their learning and ask questions if they didn't understand something.” from the report
- 01Has the risk assessment for distressed behaviour been reviewed and updated, and how is the person's current support described?
- 02How does the home now record each person's protected characteristics and communication needs?
- 03What changes were made to staff training after staff said they preferred taught training?
- 04How are residents' suggestions from meetings recorded and followed up?
- 05What is the most recent CQC rating and are there any newer inspection findings since this 2019 report?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 May 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 House
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.