CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Newton Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were being followed. They checked visitors, social distancing, protective equipment, testing, outbreaks and the infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 October 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, shielding, protective equipment, testing and infection outbreaks. They were also assured that the infection control policy was up to date.
The inspection did not give an overall rating or a separate rating for safe care. It was not a full inspection of the quality of care across all five areas.
Keeping families in touch
The home used several ways to help people stay in contact with friends and family during visiting restrictions.
“A social media group chat was set up, there was video calling, socially distanced garden visits, telephone calls and emails used to support people to keep in contact with friends and family during visiting restrictions.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing and managing infection risks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Managing visits
Individual risk assessments were created and followed to support socially distanced visits with relatives.
“Individual risk assessments were also created and followed to support people to socially distance visit their relatives outside of the home.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not specify what needed changing.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the infection prevention and control approach since the inspection?
- 02How are visitors currently supported to avoid spreading infections?
- 03How is protective equipment used and checked in the home?
- 04How are people using the service and staff supported to access testing?
- 05What arrangements are in place if an infection outbreak occurs?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other key questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 October 2020 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, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and safe medicines, but staff shortages had caused some stress.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 27 September and 23 October 2017. The inspector observed care, spoke with people, staff, managers and a relative, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment, training and safety records.
The home supported 10 people when inspectors visited, in a service registered for 11 younger people with learning difficulties. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and respect, supported to make choices, and helped with activities, meals and healthcare.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had also been rated Good at the September 2015 inspection, so the overall rating remained Good.
Protecting people from harm
Staff understood how to respond to possible abuse and distress. Risk assessments and environmental checks were in place.
“Staff knew how to respond to possible abuse and how to reduce risk of harm to people.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Inspectors found that staff had suitable training and support and used their skills appropriately when helping people.
“People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spoke thoughtfully to people, respected their choices and privacy, and encouraged them to do things for themselves.
“Staff were caring, kind and treated people with respect.” from the report
Individual activities and support
Care plans described people's likes, dislikes and support needs. Staff helped people take part in activities and go out.
“People had access to a large variety of activities that staff supported them to take part in.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingSome staff said there were not enough staff because of vacancies and leave, and that this had caused stress. Inspectors still found people received the care they needed and that staffing was usually sufficient.
“One staff member told us that there were not enough staff available, which left staff stressed.” from the report
Communication during management cover
minorThe registered manager was on long-term leave and a senior staff member was acting as manager. The area manager accepted that communication with staff about recruitment delays could have been better.
“We spoke with the area manager who confirmed that sometimes recruitment checks took longer than expected but that their communication with staff about this could be better.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on duty for each shift now, and how do you cover vacancies, sickness and annual leave?
- 02What has changed since the inspection to reduce staff stress and improve communication about recruitment?
- 03Who is currently managing the home, and how are staff supported when the registered manager is absent?
- 04How are people's individual activity choices and plans reviewed?
- 05How do you check that medicines records remain complete and accurate?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 2017 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 Court
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Peterborough
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 £1,370 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I honestly feel lucky to have found her and have already booked her for another visit.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.