Newline Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This key question has been rated requires improvement. We reviewed 7 quality statements for this key question. The manager was new to the role and recent improvements had not yet been embedded. Staff reported the manager was supportive, and they felt engaged with the service. The quality assurance processes and systems in place were not effective, and lessons learned were not always evident. We identified a breach of the legal regulations.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff demonstrated and explained the culture and views of the service. A visiting health professional provided positive feedback for the service which also aligned with the values of the service.

Staff worked alongside visiting health professionals to ensure the values of the service were promoted during all visits. The provider had systems and processes in place to share and drive the culture in the service.

The manager had been in post for a short period of time and was therefore still developing their leadership skills. During the assessment process the registered manager deregistered, and a new manager was temporarily appointed. The temporary manager demonstrated a compassionate nature and was striving to improve the quality of the service. Staff spoke highly of the new manager and provided positive feedback for their capability to do the role. Following the assessment, the previous manager has returned to the role of registered manager.

Improved systems were needed to ensure the manager was appropriately supported to carry out their role. We found them to be compassionate to people and staff. However, further improvements were needed to ensure they had full oversight of the care provided at the service/home. We identified gaps in investigations, care records and found risks were not always mitigated.

Staff told us they felt confident to report any concerns with the manager and other leaders. Staff were able to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of their responsibilities relating to speaking up and reporting concerns.

The provider conducted regular staff, relative and resident meetings to gather feedback on the quality of the service. The whistleblowing procedure was clearly communicated and shared with staff multiple times during their employment, ensuring they had access to the procedure when required.

Leaders demonstrated an open culture when recruiting staff, and on reviewing the recruitment process, this process highlighted a fair and equitable process. Staff told us they felt well supported, respected and looked after. The provider’s equality policy was embedded at all levels in the service.

The provider had processes in place to support staff. Records showed regular supervisions were occurring. Supervision encouraged staff to be involved, and staff received training and development individualised to their needs. Staff meetings were held regularly, and we saw evidence of clear staff engagement and communication sharing during the meeting minutes.

The manager did not have full oversight of the service. The management team were not up to date on actions taken where risk was identified. Staff told us they felt the service was being well managed and run effectively.

There was a lack of oversight at the service by the management team. Quality assurance systems had not supported consistent improvement. We found feedback provided following our visits in February 2024 had not led to improvement to governance systems during our visits in August 2024. This placed people at risk of harm. This was a breach of regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

People and relatives told us the provider worked well with other agencies, including the GP and other health professionals. People and relatives told us there were no limitations on visiting. Staff ensured people could go out with their relatives and would take people on visits to the local park and garden centre. People explained how they enjoyed activities provided for example singing, music sessions and entertainers.

The manager and staff explained systems and procedures in place for maintaining clear and effective communication channels with other professionals.

We liaised with external partners such as the local authority safeguarding teams and a visiting health professional who provided positive feedback for the service.

The systems in place demonstrated a collaborative approach to partnership working which is embedded in the processes in the service.

Improvements the provider made were not yet embedded. The provider told us they had made improvements and were committed to further developments; however this was yet to be embedded. Staff told us they had seen wide scale improvements across the home which had resulted in improvements to quality of the care, teamwork and morale. 1 staff member said, "We do things right, everything is good. You can ask [manager] anything and [they] are on it straight away."

The provider failed to implement effective governance systems to ensure robust audits were completed to identify trends, patterns and commonalities in accidents, incidents and falls. Therefore, we were not assured lessons were being learnt following such occurrences. This placed people at risk of harm. This was a breach of regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.