You are here

The New Inn Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 22 January 2020

About the service

The New Inn is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to seven people with learning disabilities, autism, and other complex needs, at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 10 people. The New Inn is in a detached building on the outskirts of Uckfield. The accommodation comprises a large, communal, open-plan sitting, dining area with access to a rear garden. There are two shared lounges and people have their own bedrooms with en-suite facilities.

Our inspection in April 2017 was prompted in part by a notification of a specific incident. This incident is still subject to a criminal investigation and as a result neither inspections examined the circumstances of the incident. However, the information shared with CQC about the incident indicated potential concerns about how the risk of choking was managed. Both inspections examined those risks and other potential risks to people.

Outcomes for people did not consistently reflect the principles and values of Registering the Right Support as some people experienced a lack of choice and control. Other outcomes reflected the principles of Registering the Right Support such as people’s independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Quality audits had not consistently highlighted or put right issues we found at this inspection. The service has not been rated Requires improvement in Well-led for four consecutive inspections.

Some risks were not consistently assessed. For example, we found some staff were working long hours. Doing consecutive shifts to cover other staff absence, but there had been no risk assessment.

Some staff language and approach was not always person centred or appropriate. Two entries in a ‘telephone log book’ book were not appropriate and one staff’s approach to another person was abrupt.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice. One person had a condition that meant their ability to make decisions changed and this was not planned for. We have made a recommendation about this in the main body of the report.

There were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs safely. The service was clean and free form the risk of infection. Where things had gone wrong, such as incidents, learning was shared, and lessons embedded into practice.

Staff were trained and supported to fulfil their roles. People had enough to eat and drink to maintain good health and their healthcare needs were met by staff who monitored people’s health. The building was accessible and met peoples’ needs.

Staff supported people to be independent and respected people’s privacy. People were involved in their care and staff knew peoples’ communication needs.

People had a range of personalised activities they accessed and told us that they had lots to do. People and relatives knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. There were no people receiving end of life care, but people had care plans for how they would like to be supported during their final days

The registered manager was a visible presence in the service and had a good understanding of the challenges the service faced and how to overcome them. The management team understood their responsibilities in reporting significant events and had worked closely with partner agencies.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (June 2018).

At this inspection we found improvements had not been sustained and there was a breach of regulation relating to good governance.

Why we inspected

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 22 January 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 22 January 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 22 January 2020

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 22 January 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 22 January 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.