About the service:

Newton House is an care home for 26 people with mental health needs and/or learning disabilities. The home provides services for people from the Asian communities. People are accommodated in one 20-bedded house and two three-bedroomed houses. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ People told us they were safe at the home. A person said, “Everybody here is kind to me and looks after me and that makes me feel safe.” Staff knew how to protect people from harm.

¿ The home was well-staffed and extra staff were put on duty if people needed more support. People were involved in recruiting new staff and their views listened to.

¿ The home was clean and tidy. People said this was always the case and they praised the cleaning staff for their hard work.

¿ People and relatives said the home provided good food. A person said, “The food is very nice and there is variety. Every day we have lamb or chicken or fish and lots of other dishes."

¿ People’s medical needs were met. The home had a regular GP who knew people well. If people needed specialist healthcare, staff referred them to the relevant professionals.

¿ The staff were caring and kind. A person told us, “This is a caring home and all the staff are good.” The person then turned to the registered manager and gave them a hug to show their appreciation of them.

¿ Staff valued people, respected their religious beliefs, and celebrated important events in their lives, for example, their birthdays, Eid, Diwali, Christmas, and New Year.

¿ Staff provided personalised care and people were encouraged to lead active lives. People attended colleges and places of worship, shopped with staff, and went to the cinema and local restaurants.

¿ The home had a welcoming and friendly atmosphere and people said they felt part of a family living there. The managers and staff consulted with people daily about their care and sought their views on the running of the home.

¿ The provider and registered manager carried out quality checks to ensure the home was running well. They identified areas for improvement and acted to address these.

Rating at last inspection

At the last inspection we rated this service Good (report published on 27 September 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 11 August 2016.

Newton House is an Asian life style care home for 26 people with mental health needs and/or learning disabilities. People are accommodated in one 20-bedded house and two three-bedroomed houses in close proximity. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people using the service.

The service did not have a registered manager. 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. An experienced manager was in post and was in the process of applying to the Care Quality Commission for registration.

The service had a warm, friendly and welcoming atmosphere. People were encouraged to determine their own lifestyles and maintain the level of independence they felt happy with. The manager and staff were non-judgemental, kind and caring. They valued the people they supported, treated them with respect, and took an interest in their lives.

All the people we spoke with said they felt safe using the service. Staff were trained in safeguarding (protecting people who use care services from abuse) and knew who to report concerns to. Staff were aware if people were at risk in any areas of their lives. They managed risky situation well and knew how to keep people safe.

There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff had time to interact and socialise with people as well as providing practical care and support. If people needed intensive support extra staff were provided to keep them safe. Medicines were stored safely and records showed they were given as prescribed.

People and relatives told us they liked the staff and thought they were good at their jobs. Staff were well-trained and knowledgeable about the people they supported. They understood the importance of ensuring people were involved in making decisions about their lives.

All the people we spoke with said they enjoyed the food. Mealtimes were a sociable occasion and the food served was nutritious and made from fresh ingredients. Staff catered for a range of dietary needs and cultural and other preferences. Both meat and vegetarian dishes were served and diabetic options available.

People had the opportunity to take part in group and individual activities of their choice. They told us they enjoyed weekly yoga classes, trips out, and visiting entertainers. Some people said they liked helping out in the kitchen, going swimming, and watching films at a nearby Asian cinema

People told us that if they had any concerns about the care and support they received they would speak up. They said the manager and staff listened to them. They told us they were encouraged to share their views about the service at residents meeting and in private so changes and improvements could be made if necessary.

All the people and relatives we spoke with said they knew the manager and could talk to him whenever they liked. Staff told us the manager treated the people using the service like family. They also said that they felt supported by the manager and the provider and had opportunities, for example at staff meetings, to share their views about the service.

Senior staff completed weekly, monthly and annual audits of all aspects of the service to help ensure good quality care was being provided. The provider sent out annual questionnaires to people using the service, their relatives, and health and social care professionals. The results of the most recent survey showed a high level of satisfaction with the service.

Our inspection looked at the care and welfare of the people who lived in the home. We looked at care plans and talked to some of the people who lived there, their family members and staff who worked at the home. We saw that the Provider worked closely with other medical and health professionals

We saw that people were happy with how they were treated and that they felt settled in the home. Family members we spoke with told us, “I am quite happy with the home”. And “X has settled here and thinks of it as his home.”

People who lived at the home told us, “I have a nice orderly room.”

We looked at how staff were supported in their roles and found that regular supervision and training was provided, with support given to obtain additional qualifications.

We saw that any comments or complaints were managed in accordance with appropriate policies and procedures.

We also reviewed how the home dealt with information and records of the people who lived at the home and of the staff members. We found that the Provider had clear polices and procedures in place and information was used and stored securely.

During our visit we saw that staff treated the people who lived at the home with dignity and respect. People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement.

Some people were able to do things for themselves and the staff encouraged independence, taking into account appropriate risk assessments. A person who lived in the home told us, “I am cared for very well.”

At the time of our visit the provider was cooperating with a Leicester City Council investigation into concerns, which had been identified by a family member, about the care of a person who lives at the home.

This inspection took place over two days. We arrived unannounced on 19 January 2015 and returned announced on 26 January 2015.

At the last inspection on 11 February 2014 we found that the service was meeting the Regulations we looked at.

Newton House is an Asian life style care home for 26 people with a mental health disorder or learning disabilities. The service is delivered in three residential houses in close proximity to the main home. On the day of our visit there were 23 people living at Newton House.

The service required a registered manager. 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. At the time of this inspection there had not been a registered manager since August 2014. An acting manager was is post who was not a registered manager.

People told us they felt safe and that there were sufficient staff available at all times to meet their individual needs. People also told us how they were involved in the development of their plans of care and risk plans. People said that they received their medicines at the same time every day and gave examples of what their prescribed medicines were for.

We observed there were sufficient staff available to meet people’s individual needs and keep people safe. Staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities about reporting any concerns about a person’s safety including protecting people from avoidable harm and abuse. Staff were appropriately trained in the safe administration of medicines and people’s medicines were managed in line with relevant legislation and guidance.

People told us they felt confident that staff were knowledgeable, competent and experienced and that consent was sought before care and support was provided. People gave examples of how the staff had supported them to maintain their general health by accessing healthcare services. Where people accessed specialist services such as mental health, staff supported them to attend outpatient appointments.

Staff received an appropriate induction when they commenced work and ongoing training and support. We observed that staff gained consent before care and support was provided, however, found their understanding about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards was limited. People’s mental capacity to consent to their care and treatment had not always been considered or assessed in accordance with the legislation.

People said that they were happy with the food choices available and that they received sufficient to eat and drink and their dietary and nutritional needs were met. People’s health care needs had been assessed by the provider and staff worked with healthcare professionals to meet people’s needs. This included an assessment of people dietary and nutritional needs. We saw people received appropriate food choices and observed people received sufficient amount of food and drinks to maintain good health.

People spoke positively about the staff’s attitude and behaviour and the care and support they provided. This included respecting their privacy and dignity and supporting them to live the life they choose. People said they had developed good relationships with the staff and felt confident that staff knew them well and how to support them. People gave examples of how they were supported to express their views and wishes about the care and support they received and that staff listened and respected what they said.

We observed staff to be kind, caring and compassionate. They had a good understanding of people’s needs and respected people’s dignity and privacy when supporting them. We saw positive relationships between people that used the service and staff had developed. People were comfortable in the presence of staff. The provider had developed opportunities for people to express their views and wishes in relation to their care and support and in the development of the service. People had information such as advocacy services and information about the service in appropriate languages.

People told us about how staff supported them to pursue their interests, hobbies and activities that were important to them. This included their cultural and religious needs and opportunities to participate in their local community. People said they felt confident to raise any issues, concerns or complaints if they had any. They said that they felt staff listened to them and responded promptly and effectively if there were changes to their health and welfare needs.

We found staff had information available that advised them of people’s preferences, routines and what was important to them in the way they wished to be cared for. We observed staff supported people in accordance to their plans of care and were knowledgeable about people’s needs. People had information available about the provider’s complaints procedure which was also in different languages and formats to meet people’s individual communication needs. Where concerns or complaints had been made we saw these had been acted upon.

People spoke positively about the leadership and that they felt the communication was good within the service. Staff were also complimentary about the leadership and support.

The provider had quality assurance systems and processes in place that showed how they were monitoring the quality and safety of the service.