Laxfield House
- Care home
- 34 beds
- Nursing care
- Registered since 2013
- Suffolk, East of England
Good
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
At a glance
3 ratings
Rated Good at every inspection since 2016.
2 months
since the latest rating was published.
109 of 156
rated care homes in Suffolk are rated Good, like this one.
Laxfield House: inspection record
Rated Good in August 2026.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Compare nearby
- G Greenacres Good, 5 miles away
- G Melford Court Care Home Good, 5.1 miles away
- G Canterbury House Good, 5.5 miles away
- G Hazell Court Good, 5.5 miles away
- – Chilton Croft Nursing Home Not yet rated, 5.5 miles away
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 25 August 2026 (assessment visit 29 June 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
We carried out this inspection on 6 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this inspection 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.
- Safe Good
- Effective Good
- Caring Good
- Responsive Good
- Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary
Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to keep people safe and were knowledgeable about the risks people faced. They were able to identify potential concerns and take appropriate action to reduce risks, which helped ensure people received safe and consistent care. This meant people were supported by staff who understood their responsibilities for safeguarding and risk management and who were confident in responding to concerns when required.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their assessed needs safely and effectively. The service benefited from a stable workforce, with many staff having worked in the service for a number of years. As a result, people received support from staff who knew them well, understood their individual needs and preferences, and were able to recognise changes in their well-being.
Recruitment processes were safe and helped ensure only suitable staff were employed. Staff received the training necessary to carry out their roles safely and effectively, supporting the delivery of good quality care.
The environment was clean, tidy and well maintained. Effective infection prevention and control practices were in place, helping to reduce the risk of the spread of infection and promoting a safe and comfortable environment for people.
Medicines were managed safely. Appropriate arrangements were in place for the storage, administration, monitoring and auditing of medicines, which helped ensure people received their prescribed medicines as intended and reduced the risk of errors.
Staff planned and delivered care in a way that reflected people's individual needs, preferences and routines. This helped ensure care remained person-centred and enabled people to receive support that was responsive to what mattered most to them.
People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. A varied menu was available, and people’s individual preferences and specialist dietary requirements were accommodated, helping to ensure people were supported to maintain their health and well-being while continuing to enjoy choice and control over what they ate and drank.
Staff supported people to maintain good health and well-being through ongoing monitoring of nutritional needs, long-term health conditions and any changes in people's health. This proactive approach helped ensure concerns were identified promptly and appropriate action could be taken, supporting positive outcomes for people.
The service welcomed feedback from people and staff, and comments received were reviewed and analysed to identify opportunities for improvement demonstrating a commitment to listening to people’s experiences and using feedback to drive service development and improve outcomes.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment where there is appropriate legal authority. We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and how they managed Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found staff and managers worked in accordance with the MCA and understood their responsibilities. DoLS authorisations had been applied for appropriately and were subject to oversight. As a result, people were not subjected to unlawful or excessive restrictions and were supported to have choice, control and freedom in their day-to-day lives wherever possible.
Staff knew people well and demonstrated kindness and compassion. We observed respectful interactions between staff and people living at the service. Staff understood people's needs, preferences, backgrounds and life histories, enabling them to provide care that promoted respect and well-being.
People were supported to make choices about how they spent their time and had access to a range of individual and group activities. Opportunities were tailored around people’s interests, preferences and wishes, helping to promote independence, social inclusion and quality of life. Staff actively sought feedback about activities and experiences, ensuring people remained at the centre of decisions about how support was provided.
Staff spoke positively about the culture within the service and described the management team as approachable, supportive and accessible. This helped foster an open and positive working environment where staff felt valued and able to raise concerns or seek guidance when needed.
There was a robust programme of audits, quality assurance checks and monitoring processes in place. Records demonstrated that any shortfalls identified were addressed helping to drive continuous improvement and maintain standards of care. The service had developed a culture of learning and improvement, where feedback, monitoring and reflection were used to support positive change.
There was a strong sense of teamwork across the service, and staff expressed pride in their work and the support they received. One staff member told us, “It is a small service, but we know our [people] really well, it is family run, the management are really good when staff have their own personal problems. The service is old fashioned yes, but [people] do appreciate that.”
-
Safe
Good
Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
-
Effective
Good
Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
-
Caring
Good
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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained a good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.
-
Responsive
Good
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
-
Well-led
Good
Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.
- Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
- Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.
Registration details
- Registered with the CQC since
- What it provides
- Care home service with nursing
- Who it supports
- Older People
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)2 inspection reports, latest 25 October 2018. Latest assessment published 25 August 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.
The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.
Who runs it
- Provider
- Laxfield House Limited
- Ownership type
- Organisation
- Companies House number
- 08668069 (opens Companies House)
Getting help from Suffolk County Council
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at Suffolk County Council
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 0800 917 1109, Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm (excluding bank holidays)
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: Suffolk County Council
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does Laxfield House provide nursing care?
- Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Laxfield House as a care home with nursing.
- How many beds does Laxfield House have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 34 beds at Laxfield House.
- When was Laxfield House last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Laxfield House was published on 25 August 2026.
- Who runs Laxfield House?
- Laxfield House is run by Laxfield House Limited.
- What is Laxfield House's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 25 August 2026.
Contact
- Phone
- 01787 247340
- Address
- Cundys Lane, Brent Eleigh, Sudbury, CO10 9PL Map (opens Google Maps)
Compare nearby
- G Greenacres Good, 5 miles away
- G Melford Court Care Home Good, 5.1 miles away
- G Canterbury House Good, 5.5 miles away
- G Hazell Court Good, 5.5 miles away
- – Chilton Croft Nursing Home Not yet rated, 5.5 miles away