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
- There were enough staff and infection control was effective, but recruitment checks were incomplete. Medicines records and some safety checks also needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and regularly reviewed. People received support with food, health care, communication, decision-making and activities, although some emotional wellbeing records were incomplete.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, patience, dignity and respect. People were supported to communicate, make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was tailored to people's needs, communication styles, interests and goals. People were supported to maintain relationships and take part in activities in the community.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager was described as approachable and caring, but quality monitoring did not identify important problems with recruitment and medicines. This led to a breach of good governance requirements.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but recruitment checks and quality monitoring were not good enough.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 27 April 2022. They observed care, spoke with the manager, staff and relatives, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and management records. Six people were living there at the time, and the home can support up to seven people with a learning disability, including some autistic people.
People received kind care and were supported to make choices, communicate in their own way, enjoy activities and develop independence. Inspectors found the home clean, well maintained and suitable for people's sensory and physical needs. Relatives spoke positively about the care and communication.
There were important safety and management problems. Required information was missing from three staff recruitment files. Some medicines records and checks were not reliable, and the quality monitoring systems had failed to identify these problems. Staff training was taking place, but the provider's arrangements for refreshing some training did not match current best practice guidance.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The service had been rated Good at the previous inspection in February 2019 under the previous provider.
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to have control over their lives and encouraged them to use their strengths. People could personalise their rooms and take positive risks.
“The registered manager and the staff team supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence, and they had control over their own lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw patient, calm and attentive care. Staff understood people's individual needs and respected their privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff understood different ways people communicated, including body language, sounds, Makaton, pictures and symbols. This helped people express their views and make choices.
“We observed people had individual ways of communicating, using body language, sounds, Makaton (a form of sign language), pictures and symbols.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to follow their interests, try new activities and stay in touch with family and friends. Staff helped people plan their days in ways they could understand.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousThree staff files did not contain evidence about conduct in previous health or social care employment, or why that employment ended. Inspectors said this could put people at risk of unsuitable staff.
“Failing to obtain all required recruitment information could place people at risk of receiving care from unsuitable staff.” from the report
Medicine records and checks
needs fixingSome records did not explain why medicines were given, the dose, the outcome or whether they worked. One bottle was undated after opening and vitamins were past their due date.
“One person has had PRN medicine to help with managing pain on two consecutive occasions.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's own checks did not identify the recruitment and medicines problems found by inspectors. CQC said this placed people at risk of harm.
“The registered person did not operate an effective system to enable them to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Training refresh arrangements
needs fixingStaff were receiving training, but some refresher periods were longer than current best practice guidance recommends. Inspectors recommended that training arrangements be reviewed.
“We recommend the provider reviews and brings the staff training provision in line with the current best practice guidance on ongoing training for social care staff.” from the report
- 01Have all staff files now been checked to confirm previous health and social care employment, conduct and reasons for leaving?
- 02How are medicines given when needed recorded now, including the reason, dose and outcome?
- 03How do you check that homely remedies have been agreed with the person's GP and recorded on the correct medicine records?
- 04Have the hot water safety valves all been serviced and is there evidence of this?
- 05How have staff refresher training arrangements been changed to follow current best practice guidance?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, carried out to assess the principles of Right support, right care, right culture. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 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 Newton House
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 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
42 live-in carers within about an hour of West Berkshire
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. 36 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“Titus has compassion, patience, a great sense of humour and a very professional attitude.”
“Barbara treated my mother-in-law with enormous love and compassion and provided an environment where she could feel safe and seen”
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.