CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Layden Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2024
Rated Inadequate and remains in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, staffing and management failures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection carried out over 21 and 24 November 2023. Inspectors spoke with 7 people, 11 relatives and 14 staff. They reviewed care, medicine and other records, including 9 people's care records.
The home was not keeping people safe. Risk assessments and care plans were unclear or inaccurate. Medicines were not always recorded or stored safely. Safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents were not always reported or investigated properly. There were also not enough staff at some times to meet people's needs safely.
The home was rated Inadequate overall. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while effective was rated Requires Improvement. The report says the home had deteriorated since its previous Good rating in March 2023.
The home remains in special measures. The provider must make improvements, and the CQC will monitor progress and normally re-inspect within 6 months if registration is not cancelled.
Access to healthcare
People could access healthcare when needed. Staff monitored people's health and contacted healthcare professionals for advice.
“People told us they were able to access health care at the service and this was confirmed with relatives.” from the report
Food choices
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the food. Meal preference sheets recorded people's likes, dislikes and special dietary needs.
“Overall, we received positive feedback about the meals provided and people told us their individual needs and preferences were met.” from the report
Approachable management
Staff said they felt supported and able to raise concerns. Inspectors said managers responded openly to concerns found during the inspection.
“Staff told us they felt supported, and management were approachable.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The provider's recruitment policy included pre-employment checks to help make safer recruitment decisions.
“The provider's recruitment policy helped them recruit suitable staff.” from the report
Unsafe risk management
seriousCare plans and risk assessments were not always accurate or detailed enough. Problems included unclear choking guidance, incomplete wound checks, faulty or switched-off falls sensors and call bells out of reach.
“Risk assessments and care plans were not always accurate or sufficiently detailed to enable staff to support people safely.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousStaff competency checks were missing, and records did not always show that creams and pain-relief patches had been applied correctly. Some liquid medicines were not dated when opened.
“Medicines were not managed safely. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Safeguarding and incident reporting
seriousSome safeguarding concerns were not referred to the local authority or shared with the CQC. Accident, incident and behaviour records were incomplete.
“The provider had not ensured people were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousStaff were too busy to spend meaningful time with people or supervise those at risk of falls. Some people did not receive timely support with meals.
“We concluded there were not enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Training and care guidance
needs fixingTraining in dementia care and supporting behaviour that may challenge was not yet effective enough. Some people did not have clear guidance to help staff provide suitable care.
“People living with dementia and people with behaviours that challenge did not have clear plans or guidance in place to guide staff about how best to support them.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousQuality systems had not identified or corrected important problems. Some food charts were incomplete and records were not always accurate or up to date.
“The provider's quality assurance systems and processes were not effective and had not enabled them to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
- 01What immediate changes have you made to risk assessments, care plans, falls sensors and call bells since the inspection?
- 02How do you now check that medicines, creams and pain-relief patches are administered, stored and recorded safely?
- 03How many staff are on duty during busy periods, at night and at weekends, and how do you adjust this for people's needs?
- 04How are safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents now reported, investigated and shared with the relevant authorities?
- 05What dementia and behaviour support training have staff completed, and how do you check that they are competent?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and the previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good and no longer in Special Measures after improving from Inadequate; minor medicines and environment improvements remained.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection. Inspectors visited on 1 March 2023, with inspection activity running from 1 March to 13 March. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer risk management, appropriate training, kind and respectful care, personalised support, and stronger communication and leadership.
There were still minor issues with medicines records, such as recording medicine deliveries and leftover medicines. Some parts of the environment were also not yet fully suitable for people living with dementia. These issues had been identified in the home's improvement plan.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, safeguarding procedures and accident monitoring were also in place.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with compassion and respect. They supported people's privacy, choices and independence.
“Staff were kind and caring. They showed compassion, respect and empathy and valued people as individuals.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes and what mattered to them. Staff understood individual needs and provided person-centred care.
“People received personalised care. People's care plans recorded their likes, dislikes and what was important to the person.” from the report
Improved leadership
The management team had made substantial improvements since the previous inspection. Quality checks and an improvement plan were being used to maintain progress.
“The registered manager had developed a more robust quality monitoring system to drive improvements.” from the report
Support for relatives
Relatives said communication had improved and that concerns were taken seriously and resolved.
“Relatives told us they were listened to and concerns were taken seriously and resolved.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingPeople received their medicines as prescribed, but staff did not always complete all medicines records consistently. The provider was carrying out more frequent audits to address this.
“We found some minor issues with documentation, for example, staff did not always formally document receipt of medicines or carry over any remaining medicines.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
minorThe home was clean and maintained, but some areas were still not fully suitable for people living with dementia. Further work was planned.
“However, this was still work in progress and some areas were still not very dementia friendly.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that all medicines received, carried over and remaining are recorded correctly on every unit?
- 02What work remains to make all areas suitable for people living with dementia, and when will it be finished?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient for people's changing needs?
- 04How do you use accidents, incidents and complaints to prevent the same problems happening again?
- 05How will you keep relatives informed about progress on the improvement plan?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, after the previous Inadequate rating and multiple regulatory breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2023 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.
Every inspection of Layden Court Care Home
9 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Inadequate rating throughout.
- March 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2023Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2022Inadequatestayed InadequateWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- August 2022InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 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.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
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.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.