- Care home
44 Newbold Road
Assessment report published 22 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
44 Newbold Road is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 9 people. At the time of the visit, 8 people were living at the service. The service is based over 3 floors, has large communal spaces and garden areas.
Who the service is for
The service supports young adults, with autism and/or learning disabilities and people with mental health conditions.
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment from 8 July to 15 July 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.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
The service had developed a positive learning culture where incidents, accidents and safety events were appropriately reported, investigated and used as opportunities to improve outcomes for people.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm through established safeguarding systems, policies, training and processes. Staff displayed good understanding of safeguarding, how to recognise where there may be any concerns, including observing people displaying any behaviour which is out of character. However, improvements were required to ensure all notifiable incidents were reported to CQC in a timely manner.
Risks were managed in a highly person-centred and proportionate manner that promoted people's independence, choice and quality of life whilst maintaining their safety. Individual risk assessments were detailed, regularly reviewed and focused on enabling positive risk taking rather than restricting opportunities, ensuring people could participate in activities and make choices that were important to them. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of balancing safety with people's rights and freedoms, supporting individuals to achieve positive outcomes whilst minimising unnecessary restrictions.
The environment was clean, safe and well maintained, with suitable measures in place to support people's safety and wellbeing. There were enough suitably trained staff available to meet people's needs safely and effectively. Staff training was comprehensive and reflected positively in the care and support people received. Medicines were managed safely and in line with legislation and best practice guidance. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's medicines and ensured people received support which promoted their wellbeing without unnecessary restrictions.
People's needs were assessed comprehensively, with care plans providing detailed guidance on health, wellbeing and communication needs. People and their relatives were actively involved in planning and reviewing care to ensure support remained appropriate and responsive. Staff were knowledgeable about people's specific needs and consistently applied best-practice approaches to support positive outcomes. People had access to appropriate healthcare services and ongoing support to achieve their goals.
The service actively sought and valued feedback from people and their relatives, creating opportunities for them to influence care and service development. There was an open and transparent culture where people felt listened to and respected.
The service was led by a management team that promoted a positive, compassionate and person-centred culture. Effective governance arrangements provided oversight of quality and safety and supported the continuous improvement of the service. Systems and processes were used to identify areas for development and drive sustained improvements. The service promoted continuous learning and improvement by encouraging feedback, involvement and co-production from people, relatives and staff. Managers were approachable and receptive to new ideas that enhanced the quality of care provided.
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 within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. 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. Relatives told us they were appropriately involved in the DoLS process and were consulted upon.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with people using the service and their visiting relatives to gather their views and feedback. We observed care being given in communal spaces and interactions between people and staff.
People and their relatives consistently described the service as a safe, supportive and caring environment where they felt listened to, respected and actively involved in decisions. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and were confident that any issues would be addressed promptly and effectively by the management team. Relatives also told us there were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs safely and provide consistent support.
People's relatives described positive relationships with staff and managers and told us they were actively involved in planning and reviewing care, particularly when people's needs changed. They felt their views were valued and respected, and that staff worked in partnership with them to achieve the best outcomes for their family members. Relatives spoke positively about the support people received with nutrition and hydration, including encouragement to make healthy choices that promoted their wellbeing.
Feedback highlighted the compassionate and person-centred approach taken by staff. One relative told us, "They're like a second family, they are very thoughtful and take good care of [family member]. They do everything to make [family member] happy. If something isn't working, they sort it." Another relative described the strong partnership working between families and the service, saying, "We have a really good relationship with the staff and managers. We talk about any concerns; they suggest things but let me take the lead and respect mine and my family member's choices. It's like [family member] has two sets of parents, we all do our best for [family member] and it comes from genuine care."
We saw staff had developed strong, meaningful and trusting relationships with the people they supported. They knew people well, including their personalities, preferences, routines and communication styles, and used this knowledge to provide personalised support. We observed positive engagement throughout the home, with staff spending time interacting with people in a relaxed and respectful manner. People appeared comfortable in staff presence, sought reassurance and support when needed, and responded positively to staff interactions, indicating strong therapeutic relationships had been established.
People were supported to live active and fulfilling lives. We observed people participating in meaningful activities throughout the day. Staff communicated effectively using a range of individualised communication methods, including signs supporting speech, visual prompts and gestures, which supported people to understand information, make choices and actively engage with those around them.