The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Weston Favell Houses

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

3 Martins Court, Church Way, Weston Favell, Northampton, Northamptonshire, NN3 3EN (01604) 864466

Provided and run by:
Oakleaf Care (Hartwell) Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 30 October 2025 – 21 November 2025.

We started the assessment on 30 October 2025 and visited the service on 30 October 2025, 4 November 2025 and 6 November 2025. We reviewed documents and had follow up contact with the provider, finishing the assessment on 21 November 2025.

We carried out a comprehensive assessment of the service due to the length of time since our last rating. Our last assessment for this service was in August 2017, and we rated the service Good. At this assessment, the service has remained Good.

The service is a care home providing accommodation, nursing, rehabilitation and personal care for up to 5 people. At the time of our assessment there were 4 people living at the service. A registered manager was in place. The registered manager is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and is legally responsible for ensuring the service is compliant with legal and regulatory requirements.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff completed safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns. The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection and medicines were managed safely. Although we identified some areas for improvement in relation to care plans and risk assessments, we found staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual risks and how to keep them safe. We found there was enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs, and although there was a need to improve overall training compliance, we were assured by the action being taken by the provider.

The provider had a multi-disciplinary team (MDT) as part of their community services to assist the support team to provide effective care and support. The MDT was made up of staff from a range of disciplines, including nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and psychology.

We found leaders and managers had embedded a person-centred culture where all teams, regardless of their function in the organisation, were working together to deliver the same vision and values.

The service was well-led. Leaders were capable, compassionate and inclusive and this had a positive effect on staff and people living at the service. Staff told us leaders, “Genuinely care,” and “The support I get from managers is amazing.” People told us the registered manager was, “Brilliant,” “Always available,” and “A good manager.” Relative feedback also reflected that of people and staff. Relatives said, “[registered manager] is very responsive as a manager. Will always ring me back,” “[registered manager] is the manager, [they are] very approachable,” and “I would feel comfortable talking to [registered manager] if there was a problem.”

Although there was a need to strengthen some governance processes, and implement improvements, we were assured work was underway before the assessment concluded.

29 August 2017

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 29 and 30 August and 12 September 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced; we carried out an announced visit on the second day and spoke to a relative of a person who lives at the service on the 12 September.

The service is registered to provide accommodation for up to four people who require nursing or personal care. It is part of a small group of community houses providing rehabilitation, therapy and support for people with acquired brain injuries. At the time of our inspection there were four people living in the home. At the last inspection, in July 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service continued to be rated as Good.

There was a registered manager in post when we inspected. 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.

People’s needs continued to be safely met. People’s needs were assessed prior to moving in to the home and people’s care plans reflected their individual needs and preferences in relation to the support provided. Assessments were in place and appropriately acted upon to promote positive risk taking and effectively manage risks to people’s health and welfare. Staff had received training to provide them with the skills and knowledge they needed to provide people with safe care. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely way.

Staff recruitment processes protected people from being cared for by unsuitable staff and all new staff completed a thorough induction training programme. Staff understood the importance of protecting people from abuse and avoidable harm. They knew what action they needed to take to report any concerns about people’s safety or well-being.

People’s support was provided by a staff team that were caring, friendly, and responsive to people’s changing needs. People were treated with dignity and their right to make choices about how they preferred their support to be provided was respected.

People were supported to eat a healthy diet and to have prompt access to health services to improve their health and well-being. Staff followed the advice of healthcare professionals in meeting people’s needs. Staff ensured that people who required support to manage their medicines received their medicines as prescribed.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the home. People, their relatives and staff told us that they had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide high quality managerial oversight and leadership to the home.

People’s views about the quality of their service were sought and acted upon. There were systems in place to assess and monitor the on-going quality of the service.

23 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 23 July 2015. The service provides support for up to 5 people with acquired brain injuries. At the time of the inspection there were 4 people using the service.

There is a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

People said that they felt safe in the house. Staff understood the need to protect people from harm and abuse and knew what action they should take if they had any concerns.

Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed it. The recruitment practices were thorough and protected people from being cared for by staff that were unsuitable to work at the service.

Care records contained individual risk assessments to protect people from identified risks and help keep them safe. They provided information to staff about action to be taken to minimise any risks whilst allowing people to be as independent as possible.

Care plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their support. People participated in a range of activities both in the house and in the community and received the support they needed to help them do this. People were able to choose where they spent their time and what they did.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Records showed that medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare services when needed.

People were actively involved in decision about their care and support needs There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff had good relationships with the people who lived at the house. Staff were aware of the importance of managing complaints promptly and in line with the provider’s policy. Staff and people living in the house were confident that issues would be addressed and that any concerns they had would be listened to.

The registered manager was visible and accessible and staff and people had confidence in the way the service was run.

10, 13 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people that used the service who both told us how the service had helped and supported them to relearn skills and had promoted their independence. They both told us that they felt safe at the service and that staff supported them to work towards their individual goals and targets.

We spoke with four staff members. They told us about the way that they worked with people that used the service to enable them to develop and regain skills. Staff told us that they felt they were provided with enough information to enable them to meet people's needs and they felt well supported in their roles.

We found that when people started to use the service they had an initial assessment period where a range of assessments were undertaken within the service setting and in the community to provide a baseline of people's abilities and skills. From this a care and support programme was developed with the person to help them to achieve their personal aims and goals. We found that risks associated with people's care and support were assessed and control measures to reduce risks were put in place.

We found that people were provided with adequate food and nutrition throughout the day and night. We found that there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place and the provider undertook relevant checks on staff before they started work. We found that there was a detailed complaints policy in place and on display within the service. People that used the service told us that they were aware of the complaints policy and knew how they were able to make a complaint.