CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newtown (65a)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe staffing contingency plans and weaknesses in leadership, although medicines, infection control and support planning were good.
The inspection took place on 27 September and 15 October 2021. It was prompted partly by a notification about a death, but inspectors did not examine the circumstances of that incident. They looked at staffing risks, records and management systems, and spoke with people, staff, a relative and professionals.
The home supported two people with autism and/or learning disabilities, and could support three. Inspectors found that staffing was not always safe. On one occasion, only one staff member was working between 8pm and 10pm, although two were assessed as needed. The contingency plan did not explain why one staff member would be safe.
There were positive findings. Staff understood people's needs, medicines were managed safely, infection control was good, and support plans were detailed and person-centred. People were supported to be independent and involved in their care and community.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were both rated Requires Improvement, changing from Good at the previous comprehensive inspection published in January 2018. Other key questions were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Person-centred support plans
People and their representatives helped create and review detailed plans. The plans gave staff clear information about people's needs and supported independence.
“People had been supported to develop detailed support plans, which were person-centred and gave staff clear information on how to meet their needs.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines records were complete and medicines were securely stored. Staff were trained and their practice had been checked.
“Medicine administration records had been fully completed, which gave details of the medicines people had been supported to take.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found the home clean, with clear cleaning arrangements and suitable measures for preventing and controlling infection.
“All areas of the home were clean and there were clear cleaning schedules in place.” from the report
Supportive staff relationships
People appeared comfortable with staff and enjoyed their company. Staff supported people to be independent and involved in their community.
“These demonstrated genuine care for people from staff. People appeared comfortable with staff and enjoyed their company.” from the report
Not enough staff at times
seriousThe home did not always have enough staff to keep people safe. Two staff were needed until 10pm, but only one was working during part of the time linked to a serious incident.
“The provider had not ensured there were always enough staff working in the service to support people to stay safe.” from the report
Unsafe contingency planning
seriousThe staffing contingency plan said one staff member could be the minimum between 8pm and 10pm, but did not explain why this was safe or how risks would be managed.
“We were not assured the contingency plan was a safe system of working in the event of staff shortages.” from the report
- 01How will you guarantee two staff are available until 10pm when that level is needed?
- 02What has changed in the contingency plan, and what evidence shows that the new plan is safe?
- 03What actions have been taken following the serious incident and the related investigations?
- 04How do you check that staffing shortages do not increase risks between the people living in the home?
- 05When will the provider review the action plan and share progress with families?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 November 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, January 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not fully responsive because some information was not accessible and people's views were not formally gathered.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 13 December 2017. The home supported three people with autistic spectrum disorder. They looked at the accommodation and the care provided.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring care, and for being well-led. Inspectors found staff understood people's risks, medicines were managed safely, staff supported healthcare and daily choices, and people were treated with kindness and respect.
Responsive care was rated Requires Improvement. Some people used pictures or other non-verbal communication, but their care plans and information were not yet in their preferred picture format. Inspectors also found that people's views about the service were not formally gathered and used to improve it.
The report made recommendations about accessible information and collecting feedback. It did not record any breached regulations or enforcement action.
Risk management
Inspectors found detailed risk assessments and action plans for medical conditions, anxiety and behaviour. Staff understood how to reduce risks while supporting people to take risks safely.
“Risks were identified and action plans were developed on minimising the risk.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their routines, privacy and independence. Inspectors saw positive interactions between staff and people.
“People were treated with kindness and with compassion. We saw positive interactions between staff and people using the service.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People had GP registration, annual health checks and access to specialist support. Menus considered people's preferences, medical needs and ability to prepare food.
“People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. For example, the support plans for one person detailed the recommended diets for their medical conditions.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had in-house activities, one-to-one outings and trips into the local community. The home also supported people to keep in touch with relatives.
“People had access to community and in-house activities. People were supported to maintain contact with relatives.” from the report
Care plans were not accessible enough
needs fixingSome people used pictures or other non-verbal communication, but their care plans and information were not in picture format. Inspectors recommended getting advice on developing accessible care plans.
“However, support plans were not in picture format.” from the report
People's views were not formally gathered
needs fixingAudits had identified this shortfall, but action had not yet been taken to introduce a suitable feedback process. Inspectors recommended getting advice about gathering people's experiences.
“However, the views of people were not gathered and used to improve services.” from the report
Soiled lounge carpets
minorInspectors found that the lounge carpets were soiled and said remedial action was needed.
“However, carpets in the lounge were soiled and remedial action was needed.” from the report
- 01Are all care plans and important information now available in each person's preferred communication format, including pictures?
- 02How do you now gather feedback from people who do not use spoken language?
- 03What action was taken about the soiled lounge carpets?
- 04How do you make sure staff receive regular one-to-one supervision?
- 05How are people's communication preferences used when explaining medicines, activities and changes to their care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the premises and care provided, with ratings given for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2018 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 Newtown (65a)
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 January 2012.
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 two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.