Rated Care Homes

OSJCT Boultham Park House

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 3 ratings

    Rated Good at every inspection since 2016.

  • 1 month

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 177 of 254

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

OSJCT Boultham Park House: inspection record

Care home, 35 beds, Lincolnshire

Rated Good in September 2026.

OSJCT Boultham Park House: 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. G
    The Phoenix Good, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Ashley Court Good, 0.4 miles away
  3. G
    Grosvenor Hall Care Home Good, 0.5 miles away
  4. RI
    Altham Court Care Home Requires improvement, 0.5 miles away
  5. –
    Lincoln Manor Care Home Not yet rated, 0.8 miles away

See all care homes in Lincolnshire

See all care homes in Bracebridge Heath

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 4 September 2026 (assessment visit 19 July 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

About the service

OSJCT Boultham Park House is a residential care home. The service can accommodate up to 34 people and provides long-term residential care, dementia care, respite care and day care. At the time of the assessment, 32 people were using the service.

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

Who the service is for

OSJCT Boultham Park House is a residential care home providing personal care and accommodation for older people, including people living with dementia and those requiring short-term respite support.

Our view of the service

We carried out this assessment on 18 and 27 August 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 were protected from avoidable harm through effective safeguarding processes, safe staffing arrangements and robust systems of care. Staff understood how to recognise, report and escalate concerns, and records showed safeguarding issues had been managed appropriately. 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 worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions; they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs, and staff received training appropriate to their roles. Improved recruitment processes were evident within newer staff files, demonstrating strengthened oversight and documentation. Risk assessments supported people to maintain choice and independence whilst managing identified risks. The environment was clean, safe and well maintained, with only minor improvement work identified within the laundry area and sluice room.

People's needs were assessed and regularly reviewed, with care plans reflecting their health needs and what was important to them. People's views were evident throughout the records reviewed. Staff showed a good understanding of people's needs and described how support was adapted when people's circumstances or healthcare needs changed. Care plans incorporated advice from relevant health professionals, including Speech and Language Therapy services, and records showed this guidance was reflected in the care people received. Staff monitored people's health and wellbeing and worked with external professionals to help achieve positive outcomes. People were supported to make informed decisions about their care and treatment, and consent was embedded throughout care planning and care delivery.

People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Observations showed positive and caring interactions and relatives consistently described staff as supportive and respectful. Staff knew people well and had a good understanding of their preferences and what was important to them. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and retain control over their daily lives. Relatives spoke warmly about the care their family members received and described the home as welcoming and supportive. Feedback highlighted positive relationships between people, relatives and staff, with several relatives describing the difference the service had made to both their loved one's wellbeing and their own peace of mind. Whilst care delivered was observed to be respectful and person-centred, there were opportunities to ensure care records consistently used objective and respectful language when describing people's experiences and support needs.

People received care that reflected their individual needs and preferences. Care plans described how people wished to be supported and demonstrated their involvement in planning their care. Activities and community engagement were significant strengths of the service and played an important role in supporting people's wellbeing and quality of life. Staff had developed strong links within the local community, creating opportunities for people to remain connected to the people and communities that mattered to them. People were supported to continue practising their faith and take part in local events and activities. This included links with local churches, schools, volunteers and community groups, helping people remain engaged and involved in meaningful experiences. Staff adapted activities around people's interests and preferences, and feedback from people was regularly used to shape and develop opportunities available within the home.

The service was led by an approachable and visible management team who were highly regarded by relatives. There was a positive culture focused on independence and quality of life. The service demonstrated a strong commitment to listening to people and acting on feedback, with examples of changes being made in response to peoples' suggestions and preferences. Relatives consistently spoke positively about communication from the management team and felt listened to when concerns or queries were raised. There was clear management oversight across the service, with a strong focus on delivering person-centred care and supporting positive outcomes for people living at the home.

  1. Safe

    Good

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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
Joanne Johnson
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)

5 inspection reports, latest 9 January 2021. Latest assessment published 4 September 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
The Orders Of St. John Care TrustBrand: Orders of St John Care Trust
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
03073089 (opens Companies House)
Charity number
1048355

The Orders Of St. John Care Trust runs 56 services in England, 9 of them in the East Midlands. 51 are rated Good or Outstanding, 3 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate and 2 have no rating yet.

Other services run by The Orders Of St. John Care Trust

  1. O
    Grace Care Centre Outstanding. Care home with nursing, South Gloucestershire, South West
  2. O
    Monkscroft Care Centre Outstanding. Care home with nursing, Gloucestershire, South West
  3. O
    OSJCT Gregory House Outstanding. Care home, Lincolnshire
  4. O
    OSJCT Hartsholme House Outstanding. Care home, Lincolnshire

See all 56 services run by The Orders Of St. John Care Trust

Getting help from Lincolnshire 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 OSJCT Boultham Park House provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists OSJCT Boultham Park House as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does OSJCT Boultham Park House have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 35 beds at OSJCT Boultham Park House.
When was OSJCT Boultham Park House last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for OSJCT Boultham Park House was published on 4 September 2026.
Who runs OSJCT Boultham Park House?
OSJCT Boultham Park House is run by The Orders Of St. John Care Trust. It runs 56 services in England, 9 of them in the East Midlands.
What is OSJCT Boultham Park House's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 4 September 2026.

Contact

Phone
01522 681500
Address
Rookery Lane, Lincoln, LN6 7PH Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. G
    The Phoenix Good, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Ashley Court Good, 0.4 miles away
  3. G
    Grosvenor Hall Care Home Good, 0.5 miles away
  4. RI
    Altham Court Care Home Requires improvement, 0.5 miles away
  5. –
    Lincoln Manor Care Home Not yet rated, 0.8 miles away

See all care homes in Lincolnshire

See all care homes in Bracebridge Heath