Northbourne

Updated 20 January 2026

Date of assessment: 11 February 2026 to 12 March 2026.

Northbourne is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 34 people. At the time of the assessment, 32 older people were living at the service, including people living with dementia.

At this assessment, we found the service to be good overall. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood safeguarding procedures, managed risks appropriately and knew how to raise concerns. The provider demonstrated a learning culture, and incidents, concerns and complaints were investigated and used to improve practice. People and relatives told us they generally felt safe.

People received effective care that met their assessed needs. Assessments and care plans reflected people’s health, communication needs and personal preferences. Staff worked with health and social care professionals to support people’s wellbeing and respond to changes in health. Consent to care and treatment was obtained in line with the Mental Capacity Act, and best‑interest decisions were made where required. Medicines were managed safely.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect, and we observed positive interactions between staff and people. However, people were not always supported consistently as individuals. Inappropriate language and depersonalising practices were identified, and some people were not always proactively supported with comfort, dignity and choice in communal areas. This included times when people were sitting for long periods without meaningful interaction or reassurance. Leaders had recognised this and acted, but ongoing oversight was needed to ensure improvements were sustained.

The service was responsive to people’s needs, and people and those important to them were involved in decisions about care. Information was provided in ways people could understand, and people knew how to raise concerns. However, opportunities for meaningful activity were not always sufficiently individualised, particularly for people living with dementia.

Leadership and governance were improving. Leaders were visible and staff felt able to speak up. We identified risks relating to environmental and fire safety and night time staffing capacity. Leaders responded promptly and proportionately, introducing interim controls and strengthened oversight which reduced immediate risks. However, not all routine checks and quality assurance arrangements were fully embedded, meaning leaders needed to further strengthen systems to provide consistent and sustained assurance over time.

Updated 20 January 2026

People and relatives were generally positive about their experience of care at Northbourne, particularly the kindness of staff and the relationships built over time. People told us they felt safe living at the service, and relatives described reassurance from staff who knew people well and responded appropriately when concerns were raised. Relatives said they were confident staff would act if people were unwell or at risk and that they were usually kept informed when people’s health changed or when other professionals were involved.

Staff were mostly caring and respectful. We observed positive interactions, including staff speaking kindly, offering reassurance and taking time to engage with people. Relatives described staff as friendly, welcoming and attentive, and said staff understood people’s routines, preferences and health needs well. However, this was not always consistent. Feedback and observations showed that some people were not always supported as individuals, and there were occasions where language and practice risked being de-personalising. Leaders were aware of this and had begun to act, but further oversight was needed to embed consistently person-centred practice.

People were involved in decisions about their care, and relatives described being consulted about care planning and changes in need. Information was generally shared in ways people and relatives could understand, and people knew how to raise concerns or give feedback. Most relatives said they felt listened to, although some described delays in communication or having to follow issues up before action was taken.

People were supported to eat and drink, and most relatives said personal care and hygiene were managed well. Experiences of activities were mixed. While some people enjoyed group activities and visiting entertainers, others spent long periods in communal areas with limited stimulation. Activities were not always sufficiently individualised, particularly for people living with dementia, which reduced choice and meaningful engagement during the day.

Some people could not share their views verbally. We used a structured observation tool (SOFI) to understand their experience. This showed people were mostly settled and comfortable but also highlighted times when people would benefit from more proactive interaction and reassurance.

Overall, people experienced a service where staff were caring, approachable and supportive, and where people felt safe and reassured. Positive relationships were evident, and people and relatives told us staff knew people well and responded appropriately to their needs. While some aspects of practice needed to be more consistent, particularly around personalised engagement and activities, these did not detract from the overall positive experience of care. One relative told us, “I feel reassured knowing the staff keep a close eye on things. If there’s ever a problem, they let us know straight away.”