Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Laureate Court

Goodpublished 29 January 2022, 4 years ago

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

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People were safe, risks were assessed and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were given as prescribed, but some records and some 'as and when required' medicine protocols needed improvement.
Effective?
Good
People's needs, choices and preferences were assessed and care was delivered appropriately. Some mealtime arrangements, dementia-friendly features and best-interest records needed further development.
Caring?
Good
Staff were observed to be kind, caring and respectful. People were supported to express their views, make choices and maintain their independence.
Responsive?
Good
Staff knew people well and care plans described their needs. People were supported with activities and communication, although personal preferences in care plans could be more detailed.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The registered manager had made positive changes, but audits were not always effective and needed to be embedded into practice. Changes and inconsistency among regional managers showed a lack of provider oversight.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2022

Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home needed stronger oversight and record-keeping.

This was an unannounced inspection of a newly registered care home. Inspection activity took place on 6 and 19 January 2022, with a visit to the home on 6 January. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

People were found to be safe and supported by enough staff. Medicines were given as prescribed. Staff were kind, respectful and caring, and people were involved in decisions about their care. People were supported with food, drinks, activities and access to health professionals.

The main weakness was leadership and oversight. Audits had not always found problems with infection control, refurbishment, signage, medicines records, best-interest decisions and care planning. The registered manager took prompt action after the inspection, but the CQC said checks needed to be more reliable and consistent.

The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. This was the first inspection since the service was newly registered. The previous provider had been rated Requires Improvement in April 2020.

What inspectors praised

  • Enough staff

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs in a timely way. Recruitment checks were also in place.

    “People were supported by enough staff to ensure their needs were met in a timely manner.” from the report

  • Kind and respectful care

    Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives spoke positively about the care.

    “We observed staff interacting with people and found they were kind, caring and delivered support in a person-centred way.” from the report

  • Activities and relationships

    People took part in activities suited to their interests, with an activity co-ordinator arranging and supporting them.

    “We saw activities taking place and people were involved, engaged and enjoying participating.” from the report

  • Learning from incidents

    Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed for patterns, helping the home identify future risks.

    “Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to identify any trends or patterns.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Weak oversight

    needs fixing

    The home's monitoring systems did not always identify problems, and audits needed to become more reliable. The CQC also found inconsistent regional management and limited provider oversight.

    “There had been several changes and lack of consistency in regional managers, this evidenced a lack of provider oversight.” from the report

  • Medicines records

    needs fixing

    People received their medicines as prescribed, but records of administration were not always complete. Some instructions for medicines given when needed lacked enough detail.

    “People received their medicines as prescribed, however the providers audits had identified issues with recording medicines administered.” from the report

  • Dementia-friendly environment

    minor

    Some areas did not yet help people living with dementia to find their way around independently. Signage and decoration were limited after refurbishment.

    “Parts of the home were not dementia friendly in its current presentation.” from the report

  • Best-interest records

    needs fixing

    Some decisions made in people's best interests did not explain clearly why the decision had been made.

    “However, some best interest decisions lacked detail about why the decision had been made.” from the report

  • Cleaning and unfinished work

    needs fixing

    Inspectors found some areas needing cleaning and some refurbishment work still incomplete. The provider sent evidence after the inspection that these issues had been addressed.

    “We carried out a tour of the home with the registered manager and found some areas of the home required cleaning” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to ensure audits consistently identify and fix problems with medicines, care plans and infection control?
  2. 02How do you check that medicines given when needed have clear instructions and that administration records are complete?
  3. 03What work has been completed to make the home easier for people living with dementia to navigate?
  4. 04How are best-interest decisions now recorded, including the reasons for each decision?
  5. 05How is provider oversight being improved after the changes and inconsistency among regional managers?

This was a planned, unannounced inspection of the newly registered care home, covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control, with activity from 6 to 19 January 2022. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 2022 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 Laureate Court

9 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.

  1. January 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Laureate Court →

  2. April 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
  3. January 2019Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
  4. August 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
  5. December 2016Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
  6. August 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
  7. July 2015Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
  8. March 2015Inadequatestayed Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
  9. March 2015Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
  10. February 2021

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2021.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

This home

Fees, photos and reviews from families

Guide

How to read CQC ratings and reports

Guide

What to check when you visit

Care at home

97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham

These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.

Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

Tanaka N.
2 reviews
From £1,131 a week, 4 years caring
Based about 16 minutes from Rotherham. Can care for a couple
Jonathan O.
1 review
From £1,036 a week, 3 years caring
Based about 17 minutes from Rotherham. Can care for a couple
Newman D.
3 reviews
From £1,120 a week, 20 years caring
Based about 18 minutes from Rotherham. Can care for a couple
Sunday Darasimi O.
1 review
From £1,015 a week, 3 years caring
Based about 20 minutes from Rotherham. Can care for a couple
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
Claire A., about Carla M.
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
Alison P., about Beatrice M.
See live-in carers near RotherhamProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.