CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Tynefield
Layden Court Care Home
All Hallows Drive, Maltby, Rotherham, S66 8NL
Rated Good: inspectors found the service 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.
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. 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.
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.