Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by St. Matthews

Kingsthorpe Grange

296 Harborough Road, Kingsthorpe, Northampton, NN2 8LT

Goodpublished 9 September 2025, 11 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, July 2024

Rated Requires Improvement, with an Inadequate well-led rating; inspectors found kind staff and safe medicines, but ongoing risks, dignity concerns and weak oversight.

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection. Inspectors and experts by experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, daily records and management checks.

The home had enough staff, people felt safe and staff were kind and respectful during personal care. Medicines were stored and administered safely. Staff worked with health professionals, and infection control arrangements were effective.

However, risks were not always identified or managed. Some care records were not personalised or up to date. Inspectors found concerns about missing clothing, activities, consent and restrictive practices, and responses to changes in people's health.

The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were also Requires Improvement. Well-led was rated Inadequate because the home's systems had not fixed problems found at earlier inspections. The home had been rated Requires Improvement for five consecutive inspections.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe medicines

    Medicines were administered by trained staff and were ordered, stored and disposed of safely. Electronic records supported stock checks and reduced the risk of errors.

    People's medicines were administered by trained and competent staff and medicines were ordered, stored and disposed of safely.from the report
  • Enough staff

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People were attended to promptly, and recruitment checks were completed.

    There was enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.from the report
  • Kind personal care

    People and relatives said staff treated people with kindness. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's privacy and dignity during personal care.

    Staff respected people's privacy and dignity when supporting people with personal care.from the report
  • Healthcare support

    Staff worked with GPs, dieticians and other professionals. This led to positive outcomes for some people.

    Staff worked in partnership with other professionals which had resulted in positive outcomes for people.from the report
  • Infection control

    The home was clean and free from unpleasant smells. Staff followed infection prevention procedures and protective equipment was available.

    During the inspection the home was clean and odour free.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Risks not managed

    serious

    Some risks to people's health and wellbeing had not been fully assessed or reduced. This included risks of self-harm or harm from other people.

    Risks to people who were vulnerable from self harm or harm from other people had not been fully assessed and mitigated.from the report
  • Weak oversight

    serious

    The home's checks did not reliably identify or fix problems. Inspectors found repeated failures in care records, safety checks, capacity decisions and health monitoring.

    The provider had failed to operate effective systems to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service to identify and address areas for improvement.from the report
  • Clothing going missing

    serious

    Relatives reported that clothing and belongings often went missing. Inspectors found unlabelled clothing in the laundry and wardrobes, despite this being a previous concern.

    This meant there was a risk of people wearing other people's clothes and personal belongings going missing.from the report
  • Consent and restrictions

    serious

    Capacity assessments and best-interest records were not always complete. Inspectors found restrictive practices without legal authority, which had negatively affected one person.

    We found evidence of restrictive practices taking place within the service without the legal authority to do so.from the report
  • Care and health records

    serious

    Some care plans lacked personal detail. Staff did not always complete required health observations or take further action when someone showed signs of deterioration.

    Where a person had shown signs of deterioration, staff had not carried out further observations as required.from the report
  • Limited activities

    needs fixing

    People, relatives and staff said there was not enough stimulation or enough activities matched to people's interests. Inspectors also saw missed opportunities for interaction.

    My [relative] constantly tells me she is bored, we are here every day and there is never activities, not enough stimulation.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How have you assessed and managed risks of self-harm or harm from other people since this inspection?
  2. 02What system now ensures care plans include personalised information and are updated when people's needs change?
  3. 03How are you making sure health observations are completed and acted on when someone shows signs of deterioration?
  4. 04What temporary or permanent system is now in place to label and return people's clothing and belongings?
  5. 05What activities are now available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and hobbies?

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five CQC questions after the previous inspection, and the report says all five ratings remained Requires Improvement except Well-led, which fell to Inadequate. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Kingsthorpe Grange

8 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. July 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Kingsthorpe Grange

  2. September 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. August 2022Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2022Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2021Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. December 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. August 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. December 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. January 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. June 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. February 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. April 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by St. Matthews Limited

6 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Hawthorne House

Coventry, CV4
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 23 months agoReport explained

Althorp Grange

Northampton, NN6
Inadequate
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

St Matthews Unit

Northampton, NN2
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Northampton

Primrose House

Northampton, NN2 · 0.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 3 years agocare home

Primrose House

Northampton, NN2 · 0.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 3 years agocare home

Turn Furlong

Northampton, NN2 · 0.6 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 15 months agocare home

Stoke House

Northampton, NN2 · 0.7 km
Good
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home