The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Bulwell

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Snape Wood Road, Bulwell, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG6 7GH (020) 3831 7924

Provided and run by:
Lifeways Community Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 9 to 23 December 2025. The service is a residential home providing support to adults of all ages living with a learning disability and autistic people. The service comprises of 2 conjoined buildings and a separate bungalow on the same site and can accommodate up to 22 people. At the time of our assessment 18 people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.

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.

Right Support:

People were encouraged to lead their lives but engagement indecisions about their care was not effectively demonstrated. Independence was encouraged and supported and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were kept safe however this was not effectively documented. Staff understood and managed risk while supporting people. There was little documented evidence that people were supported effectively to safely take part in activities in their local community and try new things. The registered manager made sure staff received training and regular supervision to maintain high-quality care. Staff managed medicines well and ensured people received the support they needed to take their medicines.

Right Care:

People received dignified care that respected their privacy and human rights; however, support plans did not encourage or prompt staff to ensure people’s privacy and dignity was respected which meant this may not be carried out consistently. Individualised support plans were in place but not everyone’s support plans and risk assessments were completed in full, and the wording used was not always person-centred. It is important to have clear, updated support plans which guide staff to provide appropriate, outcome focussed, and safe care for each person.

Right Culture:

Staff and managers had shared values which were based on supporting people to live happy lives and access resources, including health care, which most people take for granted.

The provider was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance of the service. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of legal regulation.

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 29 July to 1 September 2025. Bulwell is a residential care home service providing support to people with a learning disability and autistic people. During the assessment, the service was providing care and support to 19 people.

 

The service was previously inspected and rated good overall and requires improvement in the well-led key question, following a comprehensive inspection carried out on 7 and 10 September 2018 (published on 13 December 2018). The report was published following CQC’s old inspection approach using key lines of enquiry (KLOEs), prompts and ratings characteristics. This assessment was initiated due to an assessment having not taken place since 2018.

 

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.

 

Throughout our assessment of Bulwell, we identified shortfalls in the way the service was managed. We identified concerns relating to the environment, safe care and treatment, management of medicines, management of risks, safeguarding, and governance.

 

Multiple fire hazards were identified, including fire blankets in kitchens not being readily accessible, blocked external and internal fire exits, and cluttered areas with combustible materials. Additionally, some personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEP) were incomplete or inaccurate, flammable creams were present without associated risk assessments, a ‘stay put’ protocol in place without clear confirmation that designated areas were fire-safe.

We observed poor hygiene standards across the service. Some furniture and curtains were dirty or damaged, cleaning records were not always accurate, and kitchen practices did not meet safe food hygiene requirements.

The provider was moving from paper documents to an electronic system, but this had not been effectively managed. We saw care plans that were incomplete, inaccurate, and sometimes used language that was not person centred. Key details were missing from care plan documents used by staff to provide a guide on how to best care for people, and internal audits had not identified these issues. During our assessment there was confusion from the management team as to whether documents could be found electronically or on the electronic system and which versions of records were the most up to date versions.

Audits failed to identify significant issues in care quality and safety. Risks were not adequately assessed or mitigated. The provider did not act on known issues, showing a breakdown in the feedback and improvement loop. We saw that the registered manager was making improvements, but many systems were still underdeveloped.

We have identified breaches in regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and good governance. 

 

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

9 February 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Wycar Leys Bulwell is a residential care home that provides accommodation and nursing or personal care for up to 22 people. At the time of the inspection there were 20 people living at the service. The service specialises in caring for young adults and people with learning disabilities, mental health issues, physical disabilities and autism spectrum disorders.

We found the following examples of good practice.

On arrival, there was a central area for staff and visitors to apply personal protective equipment (PPE) accessed from the garden, prior to entering the home. Visitors had no contact with other residents and minimal contact with care home staff because they were asked to enter the home through a back door. The visits were taking place in people’s bedrooms or a spare, spacious room.

People and staff were assessed twice daily for the development of a high temperature. There was a prominent signage for staff and people to remind them of frequent hand washing and sanitising.

Staff were allocated to work in one of the three areas which minimised movement across the homes. Staff had ample supplies of PPE and we observed them using it correctly, as per the government’s guidance. Staff were encouraged to take breaks in a staff room one at a time to ensure social distancing. Staff were taking Lateral Flow Test to screen for COVID- 19 before every shift.

The home was clean. Team leaders and the management team performed regular checks on cleaning and staff compliance with PPE. The management team performed infection control audits and had made improvements following issues they had identified.

11 March 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Wycar Leys is a residential care home that provides accommodation and nursing or personal care for up to 22 people. At the time of the inspection there were 19 people living at the service.

The service specialises in caring for young adults and people with learning disabilities, mental health issues, physical disabilities and autism spectrum disorders.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ There was clear signage that the home was currently closed for visitors. On arrival, there was a central area for staff and visitors to apply personal protective equipment (PPE) accessed from the garden, prior to entering the home.

¿ Staff entered the building they were working in via different garden entrances after applying PPE, each entrance had masks, hand sanitiser and a bin outside.

¿ Staff were allocated to work in one of the three areas which minimised movement across the homes. When agency staff were required, they also stayed in one area and were block booked to minimise the risk of cross infection.

¿ While visiting was restricted people kept in touch with families using social media, photographs and scrap books.

¿ People were given information about COVID-19, the restrictions and PPE in place, in a format they could understand and staff used social stories to help with explanations.

¿ In preparation for the home reopening to visitors, the management team had converted a bedroom into a visiting room with outside access. Visitors were booked in advanced, expected to sign in and have a temperature and COVID-19 test performed before they entered the building.

¿ The service had a number of areas for people to spend time relaxing and doing activities. Staff had moved furniture around to encourage people to socially distance. However, not all people were able to understand the need for social distancing, so people (and staff supporting them) were cohorted to the homes they lived in to minimise the spread of infection.

¿ The home was clean. Team leaders and the management team performed regular checks on cleaning and staff compliance with PPE. The management team performed infection control audits and had made improvements following issues they had identified.

¿ Staff had up to date training in infection control procedures and policies and the management team had set up regular staff meetings to reassure staff and discuss concerns.

¿ The staff had covered shifts when colleagues were self-isolating so people were not upset by frequent changes.

7 September 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 7 and 10 September 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the service since the change of provider to Lifeways in September 2017. The service had been previously registered under a different provider.

Wycar Leys Bulwell is a care home for a maximum number of 22 people with learning disabilities. It consists of three buildings which are known as The Cottage, Homestead and Middleton House. There were a total of 19 people accommodated during our inspection.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of this inspection. 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 received safe and effective care from staff. The staff team was a mix of established staff and more recently recruited staff, all had a good understanding of the various types of harm and their roles and responsibilities in reporting any safeguarding concerns.

Risks to people’s individual needs and their home environment had been assessed. Staff had information available about how to meet people’s needs, including action required to reduce and manage known risks. When incidents occurred these were recorded and details updated in people’s care plans.

There had been a recent reduction in core staffing numbers and the service used agency staff to maintain sufficient staffing across the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s care needs. Staff were recruited safely. Staff received regular training and supervision and were able to reflect on the care and support they delivered and identified further training requirements.

People receiving support had their rights protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and applications for DoLS had been made appropriately. Staff gained consent from people whenever they could and, where people lacked mental capacity, we saw that arrangements were in place for staff to act in their best interests.

People received appropriate support with their medicines. Staff had received training in supporting people with their medicines and staff had their competency assessed.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their nutritional needs. External health professionals were involved in the person’s care when required.

Care plans were being updated and these reflected people’s individual needs and personal wishes. Where possible people and their representatives were involved in the development of their care plans.

The service encouraged feedback from people or their representatives about the service they received. A complaints process was in place. People were able to express themselves when they were not happy about something. A formal complaints procedure was in place and people’s representatives felt able to make a complaint and felt confident that the management would respond appropriately.

People’s representatives told us they were happy with most aspects of the service provided and spoke positively of staff and registered manager. People received care and support from kind, caring and compassionate staff, who respected their privacy and dignity at all times.

The people, their representatives and the staff team had confidence in the registered manager and the way the service was run. The staff team did not feel supported by the larger organisation.

Systems had been recently introduced to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided but this needed to be sustained. The vision and values of the staff team were caring and person-centred to make sure people were at the heart of the service.