- Care home
Castlethorpe Nursing Home
Assessment report published 30 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Dates of assessment; From 15 April to 01 May 2026.
Thiswas a comprehensive assessment of Castlethorpe Nursing Home. The assessment was carried out to follow up on the concerns we found during our previous assessment in October 2025 where breaches of regulation had been identified. Castlethorpe Nursing Home is a care home which provides care and support to older people, younger adults, people living with dementia, mental health, people with an eating disorder or physical disability. The service is registered to provide care and support for up to 59 people. At the time of our assessment 35 people were living at the service, most of whom were living with dementia and had a range of physical health needs. The service used to provide nursing care but now only provides residential care. People, relatives and professionals consistently reported improved communication, a more positive atmosphere and more meaningful engagement. We observed caring and respectful interactions, and people were supported to maintain their dignity, relationships and choice. Activities had become more varied and personalised, reflecting a more person-centred approach.
There was improved oversight of incidents and safeguarding concerns. The introduction of daily flash meetings supported a more open and responsive culture. There was a more visible and consistent management presence, which had contributed to these improvements. However, the service had not yet achieved a consistently safe or well-led standard. We identified ongoing concerns relating to environmental safety and incomplete actions following fire risk assessments. In addition, recruitment processes and staff file records were not always sufficiently robust to demonstrate safe practices. While safeguarding oversight had improved, this had not been sustained over a sufficient period to demonstrate effectiveness. People’s care plans and risk assessments did not always provide staff with the level of detail they required to promote safe and effective person-centred care. Governance systems and processes remained ineffective in identifying and rectifying shortfalls in day-to-day practice. Where checks had been delegated to others, there was limited oversight to ensure those checks had been completed or that they were accurate.
The service was improving and relatives had noticed positive changes, but more time and strong leadership were needed to fully embed changes and manage risks effectively. After the previous assessment we placed the service in special measures. This has been removed after this assessment. The previous assessment had identified breaches of legal regulation in relation to the safety of the service, dignity and respect. Sufficient improvement had been made, and the service is no longer in breach of these regulations.
The service remains in breach of the legal regulation in relation to quality assurance and governance of the service. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
·
People's experience of this service
We received mixed feedback from people living at the service and their relatives. Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home. However, some people stated they had never been asked for their feedback about the quality of the care they received, nor had they been included in reviews of their care plans. In addition to speaking to people and their relatives, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.
People and relatives told us that the service felt safer and more welcoming than it had been previously. Most people said they were treated with kindness and dignity, and trusted staff. Staff were described as patient, caring and respectful, often taking time to explain what they were doing and asking permission before providing support. Families spoke positively about improved communication, which included regular updates by telephone, text and email, and said they felt more involved in care reviews and decisions. Activities were frequently mentioned, including music sessions, crafts, exercise groups, discos and one‑to‑one activities for people who preferred quieter engagement. People receiving care in bed or who were less mobile were supported to take part through adapted activities. People told us they enjoyed the meals and snacks and were being offered choice. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends, including visits out of the home where appropriate. One person had been supported to return home to meet their new great grandchild.
Some concerns were raised about the physical environment, including safety features not yet fully addressed, and about noise levels for people who found busy communal spaces distressing. While people generally felt staff responded quickly, some relatives felt staffing could be stretched at busy times. People, relatives and professionals reported a warmer atmosphere and more meaningful engagement for people using the service.