Rated Care Homes

Northfield House Residential Home

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    First rated Requires improvement in 2016, most recently Good in October 2026.

  • This month

    The latest rating was published.

  • 116 of 148

    rated care homes in Leicestershire are rated Good, like this one.

Northfield House Residential Home: inspection record

Care home, 25 beds, Leicestershire

Rated Good in October 2026.

Northfield House Residential Home: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

  1. RI
    Syston Lodge Residential Home Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Barkby Road Good, 0.6 miles away
  3. G
    Pear Tree Grove Good, 0.7 miles away
  4. G
    Roman Park Good, 0.7 miles away
  5. G
    Lingdale Lodge Good, 1.2 miles away

See all care homes in Leicestershire

See all care homes in Syston

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 28 October 2026 (assessment visit 13 August 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Northfield house residential home is a care home without nursing for older people.

The service supports older people and people living with dementia. The service supported people who lived there permanently and people who were staying temporarily during assessment from hospital. The service is registered to provide care for up to 25 people. At the time of our assessment there were 25 people using the service.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

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 completed regularly. However, improvements were needed to ensure outcomes of designated audits were held and shared centrally to support full oversight by the management team.

Although lessons learnt were shared and staff described positive communication, there was a lack of reflective practice to support innovation. Staff were unanimously positive about the leadership and management of the service and felt supported in their roles and as individuals. Staff told us, “The key here is good communication. This helps create positive teamwork and we all help each other when needed. The [registered] manager steps in to help with care as well” and “The [registered] manager and owner help us with work/life balance. They care about us professionally and personally. The strength of this service is around the values of providing good care.”

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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 as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  1. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  2. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Aparna Kase
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

8 inspection reports, latest 25 March 2021. Latest assessment published 28 October 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

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
06555773 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Leicestershire County Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Northfield House Residential Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Northfield House Residential Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Northfield House Residential Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 25 beds at Northfield House Residential Home.
When was Northfield House Residential Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Northfield House Residential Home was published on 28 October 2026.
Who runs Northfield House Residential Home?
Northfield House Residential Home is run by AMAFHH Care Homes Limited.
What is Northfield House Residential Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 28 October 2026.

Contact

Address
1362 Melton Road, Syston, Leicester, LE7 2EQ Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. RI
    Syston Lodge Residential Home Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Barkby Road Good, 0.6 miles away
  3. G
    Pear Tree Grove Good, 0.7 miles away
  4. G
    Roman Park Good, 0.7 miles away
  5. G
    Lingdale Lodge Good, 1.2 miles away

See all care homes in Leicestershire

See all care homes in Syston