The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Laurieston House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

118 Hady Hill, Hady, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S41 0EF (01246) 238213

Provided and run by:
Laurieston House

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 18 June 2026 to 25 June 2026
Laurieston House is a residential care home for 5 people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were 5 people living there.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
The service had been rated as good at their previous inspection (report published 2 July 2018), and we carried out this inspection because it was an aged rating. This inspection was carried out by one inspector and was unannounced.
At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good.
The provider had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Incidents had rarely happened, but when they did the registered manager investigated them thoroughly. Staff understood and managed risks well. There were enough staff with the right skills, knowledge, and experience. Staff received regular and relevant training. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Staff managed people’s prescribed medicines well.

People decided how they individually received care. People’s person-centred care plans and risk assessments took account of their individual communication needs as well as their personal care and health needs. Staff monitored people’s health to encourage healthy living and made sure people always had enough to eat and drink. People made their own decisions about the care they received, and the provider’s staff enabled people to maintain control over how they wanted to live their own life.

The registered manager and staff had a shared vision and culture based on enabling people to make their own choices about how they wanted to live their lives.
The registered manager was knowledgeable about the individual care needs of the people living at the care home and was supportive towards the care staff, helping them to develop in their roles. They treated staff fairly and respected their wellbeing. The registered manager collaborated with the community healthcare teams to ensure people received consistent and effective healthcare support. There was a culture of enabling people to live ordinary lives in the community with just the level of support needed to keep people safe from harm.

3 May 2018

During a routine inspection

Laurieston House is a residential care home for five people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were four people living there.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good…

People continued to receive safe care. There were enough staff to support them and they were recruited to ensure that they were safe to work with people. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their medicines safely. The risk of infection was controlled because the home was clean and hygienic. Lessons were learnt from when mistakes happened.

The care that people received was effective. 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. Staff received training and support to be able to care for people well. They ensured that people were supported to maintain good health and nutrition; including partnerships with other organisations when needed. The environment was met people’s needs.

People continued to have positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect and kindness. There were lots of opportunities for them to get involved in activities and pursue their interests. Staff knew them well and understood how to care for them in a personalised way. There were plans in place which detailed people’s likes and dislikes and these were regularly reviewed. People and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had a complaints procedure although they had not received any.

The registered manager had systems in place to receive feedback on the quality of care provided. There were quality systems in place which were effective in continually developing the quality of the care that was provided to people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

3 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 3 December 2015. The service was last inspected on 5 February 2014 and met all regulations inspected.

Laurieston House provides accommodation and support with personal care for five people with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection there were three people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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’s needs were assessed and their care plans provided staff with clear guidance about how they wanted their individual needs met. Care plans were person centred and contained appropriate risk assessments. They were regularly reviewed and amended as necessary to ensure they reflected people’s changing support needs.

People were happy, comfortable and relaxed with staff and said they felt safe. They received care and support from staff who were appropriately trained and confident to meet their individual needs and they were able to access health, social and medical care, as required. There were opportunities for additional staff training specific to the needs of the service. Staff received one-to-one supervision meetings with their manager. Formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals, were in place.

There were policies and procedures in place to keep people safe and there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff told us they had completed training in safe working practices. We saw people were supported with patience, consideration and kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected.

Safe recruitment procedures were followed and appropriate pre-employment checks had been made including evidence of identity and satisfactory written references. Appropriate checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector.

Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance by staff who had received appropriate training to help ensure safe practice. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately.

People were being supported to make decisions in their best interests. The registered manager and staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and records were accurately maintained to ensure people were protected from risks associated with eating and drinking. Where risks to people had been identified, these had been appropriately monitored and referrals made to relevant professionals, where necessary.

There was a formal complaints process in place. People were encouraged and supported to express their views about their care and staff were responsive to their comments. Satisfaction questionnaires were used to obtain the views of people who lived in the home, their relatives and other stakeholders.

5 February 2014

During a routine inspection

There were four people living at the home at the time of our visit. People were attending a day centre when we arrived, but they came back to the home during our inspection.

We found that the provider had an effective process to ensure that people's consent had been sought about various aspects of their care. We also found that the care and welfare of people had been managed appropriately.

We spoke with two people who lived at the home. As far as they were able, one person told us; 'I am happy here'. The other person told us; 'I like going to the day centre. I like living here'.

Staffing rotas showed that suitable numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced person's had been employed for the purposes of carrying on the regulated activity.

We also found that the provider had regularly assessed and monitored the quality of the services provided in the carrying on of the regulated activities.

However, we found that the provider was not meeting our standards for the management of medication ..

1 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people at Laurieston House who said that they were happy there. A family member said, "It's a really lovely place for people to live".

We saw that people's dignity and rights were respected at the home, and that care planning was detailed and personalised.

We found that staff were well trained, and we that steps were taken to ensure the home was safe for people receiving care.