Newgrove House Care Home

Updated 17 March 2022

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of the Care Quality Commission’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 15 February 2022 and was unannounced.

Updated 17 March 2022

Newgrove House Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home accommodates 39 people in one adapted building over two floors, with lift and stair access to the first floor. All rooms are for single occupancy, with a range of communal rooms on both floors. At the time of our inspection there were 18 people using the service.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 8 March 2018 and was unannounced. At the last comprehensive inspection on 19 and 20 July 2017, the service had an overall rating of ‘Inadequate’ and was placed in special measures. We had found concerns with person-centred care, consent, safe care and treatment, staffing and overall governance of the service.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions, is the service safe, effective, responsive and well-led? to at least good. We received a comprehensive action plan and regular updates which demonstrated progress made with the improvement programme. At this current inspection, we looked at the previous breaches of regulations and the action plan to check that improvements had been made and sustained over a period of time. We found significant improvements had been made in all areas.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A new manager had been in post since August 2017 and completed their registration with the CQC in February 2018.

The provider, registered manager and staff had worked hard to make improvements. People, their relatives and visiting professionals provided only positive feedback about the service. We found the leadership and management of the home had improved. The operations manager had a more active role in the running of the service. Everyone spoke highly of the new registered manager who they said was approachable and supportive. Quality assurance systems had been fully implemented and maintained since the last inspection and we saw action had been taken when issues had been identified. The audit tools for medicines and care records required further development and this was completed following the inspection. The operations manager and registered manager had worked hard with implementing many positive changes and were committed to ensuring the improvements made were sustained and developed further, to make sure people consistently received high quality care.

Staffing numbers had increased and were consistently maintained. People told us staff responded quickly when they needed assistance. Throughout our inspection we observed there was a visible staff presence at all times. The registered manager monitored the dependency levels regularly, ensured staffing levels were sufficient and staff deployment was effective.

The service was operating within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We found improvements in records when people were assessed as not having capacity to make their own decisions. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff were clear about the need to obtain consent prior to carrying out care tasks.

People’s care plans had improved and further development was planned to make sure the care records were more person-centred. Risks to people’s health and safety were better assessed and managed. The assessment records were completed accurately and updated when people’s needs changed. Improvements had also been made in relation to environmental risks and any maintenance work required was completed in a timely manner.

The home was clean, comfortable and bright. Many areas of the home had been refurbished and redecorated and this was on-going. Equipment used in the service was checked and maintained.

A thorough recruitment and selection process was in place, which ensured staff recruited had the right skills and experience and were suitable to work with people who used the service. Recruitment of suitable skilled staff had been positive in the last six months and there were no staff vacancies. Staff received the training and support they required to carry out their roles and meet people’s needs. Training updates were scheduled for some staff.

Systems were in place to make sure people received their medications safely, which included key staff receiving medication training. Some minor recording shortfalls were identified, which the registered manager took steps to address.

Staff knew how to safeguard people from the risk of harm and abuse. They had completed safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns and who to speak to about them.

Staff worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure people were supported to maintain good health. People received a well-balanced diet that offered variety and choice. People told us they liked the meals provided to them and their nutritional needs were met.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the attitude and capability of the staff. Staff were kind and considerate; they had developed good relationships with people who used the service. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff who had a good knowledge of what people could do for themselves, how they communicated and where they needed help and encouragement. Private and sensitive information was stored confidentially.

We saw people were encouraged to participate in a range of activities within the service and local community. Relatives told us they could visit at any time and we saw staff supported people who used the service to maintain relationships with their family.

There were systems in place to manage complaints and people who used the service and their relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and complaints.

The registered manager practiced a management style that was open and inclusive. People, their relatives and staff had opportunities to comment on the service through surveys and meetings.