You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 January 2018

The inspection visit at New House Farm was undertaken on 31 October 2017 and was announced. We gave 48 hours’ notice of the inspection to ensure people who used the service, staff and visitors were available to talk with us.

New House Farm currently provides care and support for a maximum of six younger adults up to the age of 25 who live with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home. New House Farm is situated in a converted farm in rural land outside Preston. Public transport and a general store are close by. Accommodation is provided over two floors with sufficient toilets and bathing facilities. There is a large lounge and dining area, with extensive fields and vegetable gardens to the rear of the building.

A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

New House Farm was newly registered on 08 November 2016. Consequently, this was their first inspection.

During this inspection, relatives we spoke with said they felt their family members were safe, comfortable and relaxed. One relative stated, “It’s a good, safe environment for [our family member] to be in.” The registered manager recognised the importance of maintaining equipment and a safe environment to protect people against accidents. Staff files we reviewed evidenced staff had safeguarding training to protect people from potential harm or abuse.

We found there was a sufficient workforce, fully trained and able to deliver care in a compassionate and patient manner. Staff we spoke with confirmed they did not commence in post until the management team received relevant checks. We checked staff records and noted employees received training appropriate to their roles. One staff member told us, “I feel well trained and it’s good to have at all refreshed. I feel competent in my work as a result.”

Medication care plans and risk assessments provided staff with a good understanding about each young person’s specific requirements. Furthermore, staff had relevant training and competency testing to assist them in the safe administration of medicines.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Throughout our inspection, we observed staff did everything possible to ensure they did not limit people in any way. People or their legal representatives had recorded their consent to support and treatment in their care files.

Assessments and care records were developed with the person and relatives at the forefront of their support. A relative said, “I talk with the staff on a weekly basis. If I want to give input they are open to that and will discuss his care plan with me.” All documentation we reviewed was regularly updated to guide staff to be responsive to people’s needs. We saw documentation was developed in consultation with each person and their relatives and this was recorded in their care files.

The registered manager had an effective system to monitor people’s nutritional needs and took action to address identified concerns. A relative commented, “[My family member’s] diet is very poor, but the staff are trying to change and improve that with him.”

We found the registered manager had a range of audits to monitor quality assurance and maintain people’s safety. They completed regular surveys to gain feedback about everyone’s experiences of New House Farm. Staff we spoke with confirmed monthly team meetings were held, which focused on fostering a good working relationship with the management team.

Inspection areas



Updated 9 January 2018

The service was safe.

Relatives of those living at the home expressed feeling reassured their family members were safe. Staff understood safeguarding principles and reporting procedures.

We assessed staffing levels and skill mixes to check people�s complex requirements were met with a timely approach. They followed safe recruitment processes to employ suitable staff.

Each person�s care file contained a person-centred approach to the safe management and administration of their medication.



Updated 9 January 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had completed nationally recognised courses in health and social care to underpin their expertise.

We observed people living at the home were supported to choose what they wanted to eat. Risk assessments were in place to minimise the risk of malnutrition or obesity.

The registered manager had recorded people�s decision-specific consent to care in their care files. Staff received training in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.



Updated 9 January 2018

The service was caring.

Support planning was based around achieving maximum independence and assisting the person to move on to older adult services.

We observed staff were caring towards people who lived at the home and consistently supported them with dignity and kindness.



Updated 9 January 2018

The service was responsive.

The registered manager provided a wide range of activities suited to the individual needs of the young people who lived at New House Farm.

We found the review and update of people�s care was undertaken with a multidisciplinary approach. Care planning was person-centred to each individual�s needs.

Relatives confirmed details were provided to inform them about how to make a complaint.



Updated 9 January 2018

The service was well-led.

The management team ethos was about keeping relatives updated and involved in people�s care and the running of the service.

We found the registered manager had a range of audits to monitor quality assurance and maintain people�s safety.