Northfield House Residential Home

“We carried out this assessment on 22 September 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.”

“People received care from kind, compassionate and respectful staff. Staff demonstrated they understood the risks people faced and their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. Systems were in place to review all incidents and learn lessons when things went wrong. Staff understood how to recognise abuse and could describe the actions they would take to report any concerns. Staff had received training to support their practice and there was a whistleblowing policy in place. Staff told us they had confidence in the registered manager to listen to and act on concerns. A staff member told us, “People are safe here because they are very well cared for. If we have any concerns, we can speak with [registered manager] and they will follow it up.””

“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 understood and worked within the MCA. A staff member told us, “Regardless of someone’s [mental] capacity, we also ask them before supporting them and consult with them whilst assisting them.” People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.”

“People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines administration records were also in place and accurately completed. Guidance was in place for where people needed as required medicines and medicines were stored safely. Staff were observed seeking consent from people to accept their medicines and administering these safely.”

“People had an initial assessment which identified their needs and outcomes. Staff told us they received information about people’s needs through the electronic care plans and information handovers. However, we found digital records were task focussed and did not reflect a personalised approach. For example, care records did not always include people’s specific preferences and outcomes from their care, particularly where placements were short-term. Additionally care plans were a hybrid of paper and electronic records which made full oversight at a glance challenging. The provider was working towards completing the transition to full electronic care plans and records.”

“Systems to ensure there were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs were in place. We observed staff were attentive to people’s requests for assistance and support. Staff were responsive to changes in people’s needs and a visiting health professional spoke positively of staff working well with them in sharing information and being open and responsive to advice and guidance.”

“The provider had systems in place for effective oversight of the care provided and audits were in place to check this was done safely. For example, audits of working practices, medicines and competency, including spot checks were…”