Rated Care Homes

Balmoral Court Care Home

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 5 ratings

    Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.

  • 1 month

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 5 of 62

    rated care homes in Newcastle upon Tyne are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Balmoral Court Care Home: inspection record

Care home with nursing, 99 beds, Newcastle upon Tyne

Rated Requires improvement in September 2026, down from Good.

Balmoral Court Care 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

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Flexible Support Options Limited (Brilan) (Good, less than 0.1 miles away) and The Grove (Good, less than 0.1 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Flexible Support Options Limited (Brilan) Good, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    The Grove Good, less than 0.1 miles away
  3. G
  4. G
    Byker Lodge Good, 0.3 miles away
  5. G
    Astell Care Centre Good, 0.7 miles away

See all care homes in Newcastle upon Tyne

See all care homes in Walker

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 3 September 2026 (assessment visit 4 June 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Inspection: 15 July to 3 August 2026. Balmoral Court is a nursing home providing accommodation and support for up to 99 people. Most people at the service are living with a dementia related condition and some younger adults with mental health needs live there. At the time of this inspection, 71 people were living at the service.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

At the last rated inspection in July 2025, we rated the service as requires improvement and identified multiple breaches of regulation. These were related to having a competent registered manager, person-centred care, treating people with dignity and respect, medicines management, infection control, good governance, recruitment and duty of candour. We used our enforcement powers to cancel the manager’s registration, and the provider submitted action plans detailing how they would make improvements. A new manager is now in post and is taking action to become registered.

At this inspectiona wide range of improvements had been made, andthe provider was no longer in breach of regulations other than ones relating to medicine management and good governance.

Albeit a wide range of improvements had been made to the medication management and the treatment rooms were now clean, and the issues such as out-of-date equipment and dirty treatment rooms had been resolved. There continued to be issues with the administration of medicine. For example, we found 2 medicines which needed to be injected and a person’s patch pain relief were not administered appropriately. When staff crushed people’s medicines, they were not crushing each medication separately. Staff had not considered whether each medicine could be mixed with another, what means such as food or fluid each one could be given with or their own health. When these issues were raised the provider and manager took immediate action to ensure people received appropriate care.

People now received care from staff who knew them well and understood their individual needs, preferences and life experiences. On the whole risk assessments were in place and assisted all to mitigate risks. We discussed where these could be enhanced and improved, which the manager acted upon. Accidents and incidents were recorded and now consistently reviewed to identify lessons that could be learned to improve the service. People told us they felt safe and described staff as kind, caring and supportive.

Feedback from professionals was largely positive. Healthcare professionals told us the manager was proactive, engaged well with external agencies and sought advice to improve care. They said staff supported them with the information they needed, communicated effectively and worked collaboratively to achieve positive outcomes for people. Professionals also described improvements in the home environment, staff practice and the overall atmosphere within the service.

Many staff described improvements since the current manager took over and said they felt supported, listened to and able to raise concerns. Staff spoke positively about the person-centred approach taken within the service and said people were treated with dignity and compassion. However, some staff expressed concerns about staffing levels and the pressure this could place on the team at busy times.

Staff on occasions used physical interventions but the current records did not show what holds can be applied for each person and in each situation. When recording incidents staff often recorded limited information, which did not explain the exact hold or note if any deviations occurred. Also, from discussions with staff, it became evident they were not always recording incidents and how these were managed. We saw no evidence of debrief sessions being completed. The management team described how they had supported staff to consider alternative approaches to manage distress behaviours, but the current records do not support them to show this or look at the trends in use.

Staff had now received additional training around how to meet the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the code of practice. Some improvements had been made to capacity assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions were in place for restrictions such as people not being able to go out on their own or staff managing their monies. For people with capacity, they had not always signed records to show they consented to the restrictions in place such as not being able to leave a unit unless accompanied by staff. The new manager undertook to immediately address these matters.

The provider and manager had completed a thorough review of the service and identified the actions needed to ensure it operated in line with expected practice. They had made significant improvements to the culture, leadership, staff engagement and people’s quality of life. They recognised the scale of change required and how further work was needed to embed improvements.

Staff described receiving regular support through supervision, appraisals and informal discussions. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure changes in people’s conditions were addressed in a timely manner and a way that met the person’s needs. Staff supported people to stay independent, take part in activities and maintain links with their community.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

    We found the provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to medicines management, and good governance.

  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 inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to 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 the last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At the last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has changed to good.This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

    At the last inspection we rated this key question inadequate. At this inspection the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

    We found the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 3 September 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 3 September 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
  3. Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.

Registration details

Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service with nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability, Younger Adults

Inspection report

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

4 inspection reports, latest 9 February 2021. Latest assessment published 3 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
Crown Care IV LimitedBrand: Crown Care
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
08776429 (opens Companies House)

Crown Care IV Limited runs 6 services in England, 2 of them in the North East. 3 are rated Good or Outstanding and 3 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.

Other services run by Crown Care IV Limited

  1. G
    Highgrove Good. Care home with nursing, Barnsley, Yorkshire and the Humber
  2. G
    The Richmond Good. Care home with nursing, Doncaster, Yorkshire and the Humber
  3. G
    The Royal Good. Care home with nursing, Doncaster, Yorkshire and the Humber
  4. RI
    Buckingham Care Home Requires improvement. Care home, Barnsley, Yorkshire and the Humber

See all 6 services run by Crown Care IV Limited

Getting help from Newcastle City 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 Balmoral Court Care Home provide nursing care?
Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Balmoral Court Care Home as a care home with nursing.
How many beds does Balmoral Court Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 99 beds at Balmoral Court Care Home.
When was Balmoral Court Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Balmoral Court Care Home was published on 3 September 2026.
Who runs Balmoral Court Care Home?
Balmoral Court Care Home is run by Crown Care IV Limited. It runs 6 services in England, 2 of them in the North East.
What is Balmoral Court Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 3 September 2026.

Contact

Address
Ayton Street, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE6 2DB Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Flexible Support Options Limited (Brilan) (Good, less than 0.1 miles away) and The Grove (Good, less than 0.1 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Flexible Support Options Limited (Brilan) Good, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    The Grove Good, less than 0.1 miles away
  3. G
  4. G
    Byker Lodge Good, 0.3 miles away
  5. G
    Astell Care Centre Good, 0.7 miles away

See all care homes in Newcastle upon Tyne

See all care homes in Walker