• Care Home
  • Care home

Northbourne

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Durham Road, Low Fell, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, NE9 5AR (0191) 482 5859

Provided and run by:
Anchor Hanover Group

Assessment report published 22 April 2026

On this page

Caring

Good

17 April 2026

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Kindness, compassion and dignity

Score: 3

The provider treated people with kindness, compassion and empathy and respected their dignity. During the inspection, we observed positive interactions between staff and people, including staff taking time to offer reassurance, speaking kindly and supporting people in a calm and respectful way. These interactions contributed to a welcoming and supportive atmosphere. A relative told us, “All the staff are lovely, very caring and treat people with kindness.”

 

Treating people as individuals

Score: 2

The provider did not always treat people as individuals. Care plans were detailed and person centred, and staff were able to describe people’s needs, preferences and life histories well. However, inspection observations and feedback showed that this did not always translate into practice. Some staff used language that did not respect people’s individuality, such as referring to people by room numbers or health conditions, which risked people feeling depersonalised. Managers had given feedback, provided training and used supervision to address this, but ongoing oversight was needed to make sure improvements were consistent. A relative told us, “The care plans are personalised, but it doesn’t always feel like that in practice day-to-day.”

 

Independence, choice and control

Score: 2

The provider did not always support people to have independence, choice and control, which limited some people’s ability to make meaningful choices and maintain independence in their lives. Inspection observations showed that some people were not consistently supported to choose how they spent their time. Some people spent extended periods in communal areas with limited stimulation or purposeful engagement, particularly people living with dementia or those with limited verbal communication.

Care plans included information about people’s preferences, routines and abilities, and staff routinely sought consent before providing care. People were offered everyday choices, such as what to eat and drink and how they preferred support to be provided, and staff respected people’s decisions. However, opportunities for meaningful activity were not always sufficiently individualised, which reduced people’s choice and independence during the day. A relative told us, “People are often sitting in the dining room for long periods with little stimulation, which limits their choices.”


 

Responding to people’s immediate needs

Score: 3

The provider responded appropriately to people’s immediate needs, although support was not always proactive, particularly in anticipating comfort or reassurance in communal areas. During observations, staff were attentive to people’s comfort and offered reassurance, drinks and assistance when needed. We saw staff responding appropriately to changes in people’s health, including seeking medical advice, contacting professionals and escalating concerns when people became unwell or distressed. A relative told us, “When [Person] becomes unwell, staff respond quickly and contact healthcare professionals straight away.”

 

Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Score: 3

The provider consistently supported workforce wellbeing and enablement. Staff had access to training, supervision and appraisal, and training records showed high overall compliance with mandatory training. We observed positive teamwork during the inspection. Improvements had been made to staff facilities, uniforms and resources, which supported morale and wellbeing. A staff member told us, “I feel supported in my role, and the management team are approachable and helpful.”