- Care home
Northfield House
Assessment report published 17 June 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 1 to 15 May 2025. Northfield House is a care home for autistic people and people with a learning disability. This inspection was prompted due to the length of time since our last inspection. Eight people were living at the service at the time of our inspection. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
The provider and staff worked closely with other professionals. Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Risks were well managed and care plans and risk assessments were person centred. There was a proactive culture of looking for lessons that could be learned or improvements that could be made. The service worked with people to plan for when they experienced periods of distress. Records included clear, person-centred, positive behaviour support plans. Required checks were made prior to staff starting to work at the service. Staff received the training and support they needed to undertake their roles effectively. Staff were deployed in a way that enabled individuals’ needs and interests to be supported. The home and equipment were clean, and risks associated with infections were assessed and well managed. The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.
People’s records were detailed and reflected important past events, what was important to and for the person. Care records included detailed descriptions of how people communicated; including where they used any communication aids or systems. Staff told us there was a very good culture and supportive teamwork. Records included assessments of people’s capacity, and best interest decisions where required.
Staff spoke about people respectfully and with fondness. There was a culture of gentle encouragement and staff spoke with pride about people’s achievements and abilities. Staff valued and respected people’s individuality and treated people with respect. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home. They told us the service was much improved and spoke very positively about the culture and the support they got from managers. Staff said, “I am proud of what we do. I am so happy” and “Everyone works together, we're a really good team.”
There was a system in place for responding to any concerns or complaints. The environment was arranged to give people opportunities to spend time with other people who lived at the home, but also to have privacy when they wanted it.
Managers were very committed to providing responsive, individualised care and support. Staff we spoke with shared that commitment. A manager from another part of the provider organisation was starting to work at the service and had applied to CQC to become the registered manager. Staff were very positive about the managers and the way the service was organised and run. One staff member told us, “The managers are really approachable; and the service users are getting out more on activities. The management have really pushed the 2 to 1s and people get the hours they're funded for.”
The provider and managers had good oversight and knowledge of the service. There was a range of quality monitoring and auditing in place.
The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person-centred care and safe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.
People's experience of this service
The model supported right support, right care and right culture as staff could provide timely person-centred care based around the needs of the people living in the home.
Not everyone who lived at the home was able to tell us in detail about their experiences. We spent time observing the care and support people received from staff. We also spoke with people’s relatives.
Relatives told us they felt people were safe living at the home. They told us there were enough staff and that staffing levels had improved recently. One said, “The staff are caring and well trained.”
Relatives were positive about the care and support people received. They said, “I am happy with the service” and “Overall happy. [Person] is well cared for and I have no worries.” They told us staff knew people well and people were treated as individuals. They said, “They understand [person’s] needs, and [person] is happy and content.” People’s choices and independence were encouraged and promoted. Each person took part in a wide range of activities that they were interested in, both within the home and in the wider community. This included hobbies, physical activity and educational opportunities. Relatives said, “Since the manager change there are more activities” and “It's been better for [person]. [Person] is more independent and has learnt new things.”
We received mixed feedback about managers and staff communication with relatives. Relatives told us, “I know who to go to with any concerns” and “They communicate ok and [person’s] key worker is good, like one of the family.” Others said, “They keep me up to date, but communication could be better” and “[Person’s] key worker is on the ball. I think [person] is happy there, but they do need to involve us more. I would be happy to approach the manager.” A new manager was starting at the home and plans were in place to increase communication where relatives wanted it, and also to discuss with relatives how they wanted to be involved.
Relatives gave us positive feedback about the way the service was run and spoke about improvements that had been made. They said, “It's a well-run service and I am happy” and “My [family member] is happy, and I would know if [person] wasn't.”