Newhaven Care

We undertook this assessment due to the provider holding an aged rating; this was a scheduled assessment.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found people received care and support in accordance with this guidance.

People were supported in a way that promoted their rights, individuality, and involvement in decisions about their care. Staff knew people well and provided personalised support that reflected their needs, preferences and communication styles. People were supported to maintain relationships, access the community, and participate in activities that were meaningful to them, supporting independence and inclusion.

The provider had a positive culture where people and staff felt able to speak up and were listened to. There was evidence of partnership working with healthcare professionals and external agencies to support coordinated care. Staff were kind, compassionate, and respectful, and interactions observed were positive and person-centred.

We used observation tools such as short observational framework for inspection (SOFI), which is a tool developed with the University of Bradford’s School of Dementia Studies and used by our inspectors to capture the experiences of people who used services who may not be able to express this for themselves.

We used the quality-of-life tool. The primary purpose of the quality-of-life tool is to improve the Care Quality Commission’s ability to consistently identify and take appropriate regulatory action in services that fail or are failing to meet the needs, aspirations and skills development of people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. The tool looked at how well people's care plans were delivered in practice. We found that the provider was meeting the needs, aspirations and skill development for people in practice and in line with their care plans.

Governance systems were effective in identifying and addressing shortfalls across key areas including, care plan reviewing processes, infection prevention and control, Mental Capacity Act compliance and record keeping. However, we found shortfalls in the governance processes for medicines management. environmental safety and equipment checks.