• Care Home
  • Care home

Shaftesbury New Court Place

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

99 Whitehouse Avenue, Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, WD6 1HB (020) 8238 6990

Provided and run by:
Livability

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Good

Updated 20 August 2026

Date of Inspection: 9 September 2026 to 14 October 2026. This inspection was unannounced.

Shaftesbury New Court Place is a converted building providing accommodation and personal care to 21 people at the time of the inspection. The service is registered to support up to 24 people.

At our last inspection, published 5 May 2020, we rated this service as good. This inspection was prompted in part due to information of concern we received.

Since our last inspection, there was a new manager in post. The registered manager had been in post since April 2026.

The provider was working on improving systems to help ensure people’s lives and experiences were positive. Most staff were motivated to ensure people were happy and well cared for. We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence, and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people; this guidance was considered as part of the assessment.

Medicines management systems were in place and there was ongoing work to improve these systems. There had historically been a number of errors. The provider had taken action, although improvements needed to be embedded and sustained.

Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns relating to abuse. Information was displayed and safeguarding concerns were reported appropriately in most cases. The provider had not always submitted notifications to CQC.

Infection prevention control practices were generally effective. The environment was clean, however some areas of the environment needed repair and maintenance. Safety checks had been completed.

The registered manager and deputy manager spent time around the home providing support and guidance. People, most relatives and most staff were positive about their presence, guidance and approach.

People, relatives and staff had opportunities for meetings and sharing their views. People’s choices were sought, and they were supported in accordance with their wishes and needs in most cases. Relatives were involved with people’s care planning and reviews.

Most people said they enjoyed the food. The mealtime experience needed some further development to ensure it felt less task led and support was always given in accordance with people’s assessed needs. Most people felt they had enough to do with their time, and they had appropriate access to support services. We received feedback from 6 health and social care professionals. Most were positive about the service.

People and staff gave mixed feedback about whether staffing levels consistently met people’s needs. We noted staff were not always visible around the home and opportunities for meaningful engagement were limited for people. Staff received training and support. We spoke with, and received feedback from, 6 members of staff. Staff gave mixed views about the service they provided, the management team and if they liked working there. Some were unsettled with the management changes and felt there were areas which needed improving.

People's experience of the service

Updated 20 August 2026

We spoke with 9 people and 7 relatives.

Most people were happy living at the service and told us staff supported them well. They told us staff and management were kind and helpful. People said they felt safe. However, people’s experiences were not consistently positive. Some people felt the change regarding there not always being an escort of emergency hospital admissions left them worried. One person told us that staffing arrangements at night did not always ensure they had their preferred gender of carer supporting them.

People and most relatives told us staff knew people well. Care plans were being further developed with people involved. These included information to help ensure care was safe and person centred. However, we noted some needed further development to capture all needs. People told us their care needs were met in most cases, and some said they had things to do to occupy themselves. Some people said they would like more opportunity to go out.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because they had complex needs, which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We also displayed posters in the home, explaining we were carrying out an inspection and sharing our contact details for people to use when we had been unable to speak with them.