The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Kirkstall Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

119-129 Vesper Road, Kirkstall, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS5 3LJ (0113) 259 1111

Provided and run by:
Dukeries Healthcare Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 4 to 11 March 2026. Kirkstall Court is a residential service supporting people with brain injuries.

We carried out this assessment partly due to concerns we received regarding people’s safety at the service. We did not find these concerns were substantiated. We reviewed all quality statements.

People told us they felt safe, and we found the environment to be clean, well maintained and supported by appropriate infection prevention and control measures. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and made referrals, where required. Staff were safely recruited.

During this assessment, we found some improvements were needed in medicines management. Some care records linked to risks to people’s care also required strengthening, including clearer guidance for risks such as diabetes and skin integrity. We discussed our concerns with the registered manager. They took prompt responsive action.

People were supported by staff who were kind, calm and respectful, and interactions we observed were positive. Staff understood people’s preferences and promoted independence, with individuals encouraged to participate in daily tasks and community activities. People and relatives shared positive feedback about the management team, describing leaders as responsive and approachable. Staff felt well supported. Care was person‑centred and responsive, with prompt referrals to external professionals when needs changed. However, recording of involvement in reviews and activities required continued improvement.

Overall, people experienced caring support within a positive culture. The management team demonstrated a clear commitment to improving the service and addressing issues identified during the assessment. Quality assurance systems were in place and had been mostly effective, though some audits had not identified the gaps we found in medication and record‑keeping. Immediate action was taken to make these more robust.

3 March 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Kirkstall Court is a purpose-built residential home near Leeds City Centre. It provides a specialist service for people with Korsakoff's syndrome which is a brain injury resulting from alcohol misuse. At the time of our inspection there were 36 people living at the home.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The care home was closed to all visitors except health professionals, for example district nurses. Appointments not requiring direct contact, were conducted by telephone, video calls or window visits.

The care home was rated 98% in their most recent infection control audit.

Staff and people were regularly tested in line with the government's current COVID-19 testing programme.

People shielding were provided with activity support to ensure the person feels secure and with easy read information on recent National updates.

7 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Kirkstall Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Kirkstall Court is a purpose built residential home on the main bus route into Leeds City Centre. It provides a specialist service for people with Korsakoff's syndrome which is a brain injury resulting from alcohol misuse. At the time of our inspection there were 36 people living at the home.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 7 and 11 November 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced and the second day was announced beforehand. At our previous inspection in August 2015 we rated the service as 'Good' overall but it ‘Required improvement’ to be safe. This was because medicines practice needed to be improved. At this inspection we found the required improvements had been made.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe at the service. Staff were confident about how to protect people from harm and what they would do if they had any safeguarding concerns. Risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to keep risks to a minimum. Lessons were learnt from complaints, safeguarding and incidents to prevent reoccurrence in the future.

There were appropriate systems in place to make sure that people were supported to take medicines safely and as prescribed.

There were sufficient numbers of skilled staff on duty to make sure people’s needs were met. Recruitment procedures ensured that staff were of suitable character and background to work with vulnerable people.

Staff were supported by a comprehensive training programme and supervisions to help them carry out their roles effectively. Staff were led by an open and accessible management team.

The manager and staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Where people required support with eating or drinking, this was appropriately provided, taking into account people’s likes and dislikes.

People told us that staff were caring and that their privacy and dignity were respected. People were encouraged to become more independent to support them to return to live in the community.

Care plans provided comprehensive information and showed that individual preferences were taken into account. People’s needs were regularly reviewed and where appropriate, changes were made to the support they received.

People were supported to maintain their health and had access to health services if needed. The service worked well with other professionals to support people's rehabilitation.

People received good care at the end of their lives. Staff had received training in end of life care and were sensitive to the needs of people, their friends and relatives.

There were systems in place to look at the quality of the service provided and action was taken where shortfalls were identified. People had opportunities to make comments about the service and how it could be improved.

The registered manager had good oversight of the service and there was a caring culture. The registered manager had made improvements at the service since they started in post.

04 August 2015

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection carried out on the 04 August 2015.

Kirkstall Court is a purpose built home, which caters for people with alcohol related difficulties. It consists of 38 en-suite bedrooms, located on three floors. The home is on the main bus route into Leeds City Centre and is four miles away from the centre. It is also close to local shops, Kirkstall Abbey and Kirkstall Museum.

At the time of this inspection the home did have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found people were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff worked with people who used the service and staff completed an induction when they started work. Staff received the training and support required to meet people’s needs. However, we noted the schedule for staff supervision and appraisal was not in line with the provider‘s policy. The registered manager told us they would review the staff supervision and appraisal process.

People told us they felt safe in the home and we saw there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adults and knew what to do to keep people safe. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely. However, the registered manager told us they would look at improving the management of medication stock control.

The care plans we looked at contained appropriate mental capacity assessments. At the time of our inspection Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisations had been carried out appropriately. There was opportunity for people to be involved in a range of activities within the home or the local community.

People’s care plans contained sufficient and relevant information to provide consistent, care and support. People had a good experience at mealtimes. People received good support that ensured their health care needs were met. Staff were aware and knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity.

The service had good management and leadership. People got opportunity to comment on the quality of service and influence service delivery. Effective systems were in place which ensured people received safe quality care. Complaints were welcomed and were investigated and responded to appropriately. However, the registered manager was going to start recording verbal complaints.

18 June 2013

During a routine inspection

Before people received any care, treatment or support they were routinely asked for their consent. Members of staff told us they always explained all procedures and treatments. People had contributed their preferences and their experiences were taken into account in relation to how care and support was delivered. One person told us, 'I can agree or disagree.' Another person told us, 'I find I do what I want when I want.'

People's needs were assessed and care, treatment and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care needs. The care plans contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. One person told us, 'Care is very good. It is a set programme but I am happy.' Another person told us, 'Everything is alright as these places go. It is easy going.'

Medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately. People we spoke with said they received their medication on time and when they needed it. One person told us, 'I get my medication everyday.' Another person said, 'They explain what the medication is.'

We found people were supported by sufficient numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced staff which met people's needs. People we spoke with told us there were always enough staff to help them when they needed support.

There were quality monitoring programmes in place, which included people giving feedback about their care, support and treatment. This provided a good overview of the quality of the service's provided.

14 May 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us they were happy with the care provided. We spoke with three people who used the service. People told us they were able to choose what they wanted to do each day and decide if they wanted to join in with the activities. They also told us that the reintroduction of domestic skills had helped them with the structure of each day. People said they were aware they had a plan of care and one person told us they had input to how they wanted to be cared for. All three people told us there were plenty of activities and they enjoyed taking part.

Everyone we spoke with told us their dignity was respected and confidentiality was always maintained. All three people told us that staff encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

We spoke with one relative who told us they had been involved in the development of their relative's care and care plan. They also told us they were able to make changes and contribute to their relative's care if they wished. They told us their relative's dignity was respected and independence was routinely encouraged. They said they had been invited to complete questionnaires about the home and to go on some of the trips with their relative.

People who used the service told us they were happy living at the home and they were well looked after. They told us that they felt safe at the home and they would tell staff or the manager if they were worried about anything.

We spoke with one relative who told us they were happy with the care and their family member was well looked after. They told us that the staff understood the care needs of their family member. They said that they were contacted by the home straight away if their family member required any treatment.

29 July 2011

During a routine inspection

When talking to individuals living in the home they told us their needs were properly assessed before they moved into the home.

Individuals they told us they enjoyed living at Kirkstall Court. Four people said "This is a good place; they really look after you here." "The staff helps you a lot and we are all happy here."

People told us they were pleased with the quality of the food served and confirmed that there was a choice at main mealtimes. One person told us that since admission he has gained weight due to staff encouraging him to eat a nutritional and balanced diet and monitoring his weight on a regular basis.

People told us the staff are kind and treat them well. They said the home has a good group of core staff. They said the staff understood them and are able to adequately meet their care needs.

We spoke to three people by phone that have relatives living at Kirkstall Court and all three stated they are happy with the care provided to their relatives. One said 'If I have any concerns I know the manager would take action quickly and sort out the problem'. Another said 'I did not think my brother would live until he went into Kirkstall Court, they have worked wonders with him' 'I wish we had found this place first time round'.

External stakeholders including the contract management team of Leeds City Council were contacted to provide information as to how during their work with the service they feel the outcomes were being met. In response, they did not raise any concerns.