New House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 15 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

About the service

New House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 8 people. At the time of the inspection 8 people were living at the service.

Who the service is for

This is a specialist service for people with a learning disability and autistic people. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance. We followed this 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. The service is working in line with this guidance.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 11 June to 25 June 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 received person-centred care from staff who knew them well. Staff took time to understand people’s individual communication needs, helping them recognise people’s wishes and preferences.

Senior staff provided daily support and oversight to help maintain good-quality care. They took a proactive approach to reviewing safety and contributed to care and quality reviews to uphold standards. Staff felt supported in their roles and knew they could seek help when needed.

A culture of kindness and respect was promoted in the service. Staff spoke fondly of the people they supported and described how they would advocate for them if needed. One staff member said, “We think about the person and act in their best interests. We always work for [people] and always ask them, it’s all about them.” Another staff member said, “We make sure people have the same opportunities we would get.”

Systems were in place to safeguard people from harm, and staff understood how to recognise and report concerns. Processes for reporting accidents and incidents were established and used to monitor safety.

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 authorisations within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA principles. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

Care plans reflected people’s needs and were regularly reviewed, people had key workers who would discuss their care and support needs with them. Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing appropriately, and referrals were made when needed. Good relationships had been built with other professionals in the areas and staff sought advice when they had concerns about people’s health. Medication was managed safely in the service. Staff were trained to manage medicines and did so safely. Competency checks were in place to help ensure safe care.

People were supported to eat and drink well, and staff knew how to modify people’s meals safely. This formed a part of staff training and guidance was clear and accessible to ensure people were not put at risk. Improvements in the dining experience were planned to help ensure people were given as much choice and control as possible.

Leaders were visible in the service and seniors worked hard to provide daily oversight. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was actively sought and used to make improvements.

Governance systems were in place however; improvements were needed to ensure all areas of the service had sufficient review and that all checks taking place were fully recorded and effective. Seniors had good oversight of the service and were completing daily quality and safety checks. However, these were either informal or not consistently recorded. Seniors reacted quickly to feedback during the inspection and worked to implement new recording processes to help evidence their oversight.

The provider had recently introduced and developed new auditing tools however, some of these contained limited data or had not yet been used by the service. Due to this, more time was needed to embed new practice and to ensure their effectiveness in supporting the service evidencing robust oversight of safety and quality.

Overall, the service demonstrated significant progress and a clear commitment to continuous improvement. While some systems required further embedding and strengthening, people were receiving safe, person-centred care from a caring and responsive staff team. Leaders were taking appropriate action to address areas identified for improvement.