We carried out a review of the data available to us about Newhaven Residential Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Newhaven Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Newhaven Residential Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 21 people at the time of the inspection. The service is registered to support up to 25 people, but the provider decided to have two shared bedrooms for single occupancy, making 23 the maximum number of people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Staff knew what to do to support people to remain safe. Staff completed safeguarding training and knew how to recognise abuse and how to report concerns. Risk assessments were in place to provide staff with information on how to minimise the risk of incidents. Accidents were monitored and analysed to help prevent reoccurrence. The service was a safe and clean environment, suitable for people’s needs.
Staff were recruited safely and there were enough on duty to support people. Staff had access to training and there was a support system in place, which included formal supervision and day to day availability of management. Staff reported morale was good and they enjoyed their work.
People’s health and nutritional needs were met. Records showed health professionals visited the service when required and some people went out to visit their GP, dentist or hospital consultant. People told us they liked the meals provided to them and the menus provided choice and alternatives.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff knew how to ensure people made their own decisions; this was confirmed in discussions with people and their relatives.
Staff were described as kind and caring, and treated people with respect. They supported people to be as independent as possible. People had assessments of their needs before admission and care plans described how people preferred to be cared for to enable these needs to be met.
The provider had a quality assurance system, which consisted of audits, meetings and surveys. Action plans were developed following these checks to help improve the service and respond to people’s suggestions. There was a complaints procedure on display and people felt able to raise concerns or complaints.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 28 March 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
People living at the home were mainly older people. Some people required more assistance because of physical illnesses or because they had problems coping with everyday tasks.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. At the time of our inspection there was no one subject to such an authorisation.
We found that people’s health care needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in a consistent way through the use of their care plans. People were involved in the planning of their care, but many did not wish to see their care plans. The information and guidance provided to staff in the care plans was clear. Risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed, but plans were not put in place to minimise risk in order to keep people safe. The care plans were all being reviewed as a new format was being introduced.
People had been consulted about the development of the home and quality checks had been completed to ensure the home could meet people’s requirements. However, there was little analysis of quality checks. Where this had taken place the lessons to be learnt had been passed on to staff through staff meetings.
We found that there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people using the service. The provider had taken into consideration the complex needs of each person to ensure their needs could be met through a 24 hour period.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff in the home took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to the staff in the home. The staff on duty knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives.
People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks. Meals could be taken in a dining room, sitting rooms or people’s own bedrooms. Staff encouraged people to eat their meals and gave assistance to those that required it. However, there were no menus on display so people could not remind themselves of the choices they had made.
The provider used safe systems when new staff were recruited. All new staff completed training before working in the home. On-going training and support was available for all staff.
There had been some refurbishment and renewal of some floor coverings and furniture since our last inspection. There was a system in place to ensure the refurbishment programme continued.
The service provides care and support for up to 25 people. When we undertook our inspection there were 22 people living at the service.
We inspected Newhaven Residential Home on 26 February 2015. This was an unannounced inspection. Our last inspection took place on 27 August 2014 during which we found the service was not meeting all the standards we assessed. This was because we found at our August 2014 inspection we found the policies regarding safeguarding procedures had not been reviewed since 2009 and an incident had not been reported to the relevant statutory bodies. The provider sent us an action plan and at this inspection the provider was compliant.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. There were no people living at the home that were subject to any such restrictions.
There were a mixture of people who lived at the home of varying age groups. Some were mobile and could walk around easily, whilst others required walking aids or wheelchairs. Some people liked to spend their time in sitting rooms and the garden. Others preferred to stay in their bedrooms most of the day and saw their visitors in those rooms.
We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered in a consistent way through the use of a care plan. People were involved in the planning of their care and had agreed to the care provided. The information and guidance provided to staff in the care plans was clear. Risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and plans put in place to minimise risk in order to keep people safe.
The staff on duty knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People were supported to maintain their independence and control over their lives.
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. The staff in the home took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to the staff in the home.
People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks. Meals could be taken in a dining room, sitting rooms or people’s own bedrooms. Staff encouraged people to eat their meals and gave assistance to those that required it.
The provider used safe systems when new staff were recruited. All new staff completed thorough training before working in the home. The staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the welfare of an individual. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs.
People had been consulted about the development of the home and quality checks had been completed. However, some areas of the home and some equipment required refurbishment and there was no plan in place to ensure the environment and equipment was updated.
This helped us to answer the questions below.
Is the service safe?
Risk assessments were in place to identify the risks to people using the service and identify action needed to reduce these risks. Where required equipment was in place to meet the needs of people using the service, for example, standing aids, specialist beds and mattresses.
People told us they felt safe at the home. They had confidence in the staff caring for them and the managers
We found that safeguarding policies and procedures required review to ensure they meet current requirements. We were concerned that a safeguarding incident had not been identified and therefore reported appropriately.
Is the service effective
Care plans were developed with the involvement of people using the service and reflected their needs and preferences. They were reviewed and updated regularly to ensure they met current needs.
Visitors confirmed they were able to visit freely and were able to see their relative in private if they wished.
The home collaborated with other professionals and services to ensure people's health needs were identified and met.
Is the service caring?
People told us staff were friendly and caring. One person said, 'I don't think anybody could do any better.' Another person described it as, 'Feeling like home '
People's privacy and confidentiality was maintained and they were treated with dignity and respect.
Is the service responsive?
People were provided with information on how to make a complaint and told us they felt able to raise any issues with the staff or manager. One person said, 'They (the manager) told me how to make a complaint and they said that if there is ever anything I am unhappy about come and talk to us. I feel that I can do that as they are easy to talk to.'
Senior staff met with each person using the service monthly to review the quality of the service provided and identify changes.
Staff listened to feedback from people using the service and responded to this wherever possible.
Is the service well led?
There was a programme of quality audits to assess the quality of care and introduce improvements.
A training programme was in place to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills necessary for their roles. However, staff did not have regular supervision or appraisal to assess their progress and identify their training needs.
The manager was available to staff and people using the service on a daily basis and was proactive in identifying issues.
We saw the home had taken steps to promote people's dignity; one person's care plan we reviewed stated, 'XXX wishes for female carers to attend her personal needs.'
We looked around the home and observed a high overall standard of cleanliness. We saw people's rooms were clean and communal areas were clean and tidy. One person living at the home told us, 'I think they do a good job keeping this place clean, I've no complaints about its cleanliness.'
We observed that care staff were attentive to people's needs and their interaction with people was friendly, respectful and professional.
The home was kept clean and free from odour. Towels and flannels were washed each day; bed linen as washed regularly.
People who lived at the home were well presented and well groomed.
One person told us, 'You could not find a better home. It's lovely. They couldn't look after us any better. It's very homely; it just feels like home to me.'
We saw people were given choices in how they wished to spend their day and were encouraged to join in a programme that offered both group and one-to-one activities each weekday.
We observed people were given a good choice of hot and cold food from a menu. Refreshments were available throughout the day.
Another person had recently decided to make their move to Newhaven permanent. 'I have been here on a temporary basis for a while and thought I might go home again. I've decided to stay because I like it here and feel safe.'
All the people we spoke with told us there were always plenty of staff on duty who took time to talk with them if they were worried about anything.
One person told us 'The staff are excellent. The care I receive is wonderful, as is the food. There is always plenty of good, home cooked food.'
We observed that people seemed very relaxed and content and this was confirmed by those we spoke with.
A relative told us that they were always made welcome and staff kept them informed about their relative. 'My relative seems to be content. They never complain about anything and always look clean and smart.'