• Care Home
  • Care home

Cookridge Court

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Iveson Rise, Lawnswood, Leeds, LS16 6NB (0113) 267 2377

Provided and run by:
Cookridge Court Limited

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

This care home is run by two companies: Cookridge Court Limited and Barchester Healthcare Homes Limited. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.

Assessment report published 19 November 2025

On this page

Effective

Requires improvement

19 November 2025

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Assessing needs

Score: 2

The provider assessed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. A preassessment took place before a person joined the service, to help ensure the service could meet their needs. Person-centred care plans had been developed which outlined people’s health and communication needs. However, we found issues with the recording and accuracy of information within these care records. For example, one person’s care plan mentioned needing a wheelchair to help with mobility, but the person’s health had deteriorated, and they were now care for in bed. The care plan had not been updated to reflect this. People had not been affected by the inaccuracies with the care records, as staff knew them well and could tell us how they cared for people effectively. However, there was a potential risk to people because of these inaccuracies. Issues with records has been followed up within the well led domain.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 2

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. However, due to the concerns raised during the inspection, we could not be assured that the service always effectively considered legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were involved in planning their care and people told us they had reviews with the service; efforts had been made to reflect people’s interests and what mattered to them. Nationally recognised assessment tools were in use such as for skin integrity and the risk of malnutrition to help evidence good practice in some areas. However, we found shortfalls in other areas, such as the service’s understanding of the MCA.

People’s hydration and nutritional needs had been assessed, and the chef was knowledgeable about how to meet the needs of the people. People told us they enjoyed the food. One person said, “This new chef comes up and chats about the food, he tries new things and it’s really good.”

During the inspection we checked people’s care records for those who required modified diets. We found errors had been made in one person’s record who required thickened fluids. It was recorded that this person had received fluids at the incorrect thickness. The registered manager and deputy manager worked quickly to address this concern during the inspection and the person had not come to any harm. However, this error had not been picked up by the internal governance within the service and therefore we have followed this up within the well led domain.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Systems were in place to ensure information about people was shared appropriately with other services when needed. Hospital emergency plans had been developed to ensure easy information sharing, and good relationships had been developed with partner organisations. Staff worked well together and completed handovers to ensure all staff were updated on people’s care and health. One staff member said, “We have the best staff team, very much a family and have a whole home approach to things. We help each other.”

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals and staff monitored people’s health and well-being daily. There were regular visits from health care professionals including GPs. When asked about accessing other health services, one person told us, “Oh yes, if anything happens, they will get the GP in, we have our feet done every six weeks and other people have professionals come in to see them.”

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.Staff monitored people’s health daily and knew how to escalate concerns if people’s conditions changed. People who may have been at greater risk of malnutrition had regular weights recorded and staff monitored daily food intakes to ensure people remained healthy.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.We found an inconsistent approach to ensuring the principles of the MCA had been followed. Some people had not been appropriately assessed when they lacked capacity to consent to aspects of their care. This resulted in people’s liberty being restricted without proper involvement, reviews or records.

Where people were deprived of their liberty, applications under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been submitted to the local authority. However, these had not been updated when a person’s needs changed, therefore we could not be assured that these applications fully represented the person. The registered manager acknowledged the feedback from the inspection and began work to review the applications, updating them where needed.