Newbridge House

“Who the service is for”

“This service provides support to older people who may have a range of needs including learning disabilities, physical disability or dementia. At the time of our inspection, they were not supporting anyone with a learning disability. Key findingsWe carried out this assessment on 20 0ctober 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.”

“People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and had choice, control and freedom over their lives.”

“We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability, but the provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture’.”

“People received safe care. There were care plans and risk assessments in place that were based on people’s needs that had been assessed. Staff knew people well and were able to tell us about people. One staff member said, “We have the information in the paperwork and documents.””

“Care was reviewed with people and those important to them to ensure it remained relevant. Staff had been safely recruited and had the skills, knowledge and training to support people ensuring their care needs were met. Staff and records confirmed they had received training. With 1 staff member saying, “Yes, all the mandatory training that we need.””

“There was evidence of learning through accidents and incidents, and staff were part of this through team meetings and handovers. One staff member told us, “We have regular meetings where we can talk about people and changes if needed.”We saw there were enough staff available to support people, and they did not have to wait for support. Staff also confirmed this. One staff member said, “We could always do with 1 more but there are enough”.People were treated in a kind and caring way by staff who knew them well. We saw staff engaging with people, talking with them about their families and things that were important to them. Staff were patient and caring in their responses.”

“Staff confirmed they felt supported and listened to. The provider had created a culture where staff felt confident to raise concerns and there were whistleblowing procedures in place. One staff member said, “It’s a nice place, we are all a team.””

“The home environment required redecoration, repair and decluttering. The provider had a plan in place to address this.”

“However, improvements were needed to ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were consistently followed. This included ensuring when people could consent to their care, they did so and ensuring that when people were unable to consent to…”