OSJCT Boultham Park House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 4 September 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

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.

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.