Rated Care Homes

Well Springs Nursing Home

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 3 ratings

    Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.

  • 1 month

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 22 of 102

    rated care homes in Bradford are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Well Springs Nursing Home: inspection record

Care home with nursing, 63 beds, Bradford

Rated Requires improvement in September 2026, down from Good.

Well Springs Nursing Home: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Malvern Nursing Home (Good, 0.1 miles away) and Emm Lane Care Home (Good, 0.5 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Malvern Nursing Home Good, 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Emm Lane Care Home Good, 0.5 miles away
  3. G
    Greystones Nursing Home Good, 0.6 miles away
  4. RI
    Spring Mount Requires improvement, 0.6 miles away
  5. G
    Hazel Bank Care Home Good, 0.6 miles away

See all care homes in Bradford

See all care homes in Manningham

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 9 September 2026 (assessment visit 10 June 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Dates of assessment: 17 June 2026 to 14 July 2026. We visited the service on 17 and 22 June 2026. Well Springs is a care home providing nursing support to older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of the assessment there was 54 people living at the service. This was a planned assessment due to the age of the previous rating.

At this assessment the rating has changed from good to requires improvement. We found the provider was in breach of 5 legal regulations in relation to person centred care, dignity and respect, safe care and treatment, safeguarding and good governance.

People did not always receive safe, effective and person-centred care. We identified concerns relating to the management of risks, medicines, admissions, safeguarding oversight, care planning and end-of-life planning. In some cases, people did not receive care in line with their assessed needs, identified risks were not always effectively managed, and opportunities to learn from incidents and improve practice had been missed.
People's experiences were not always consistent. Care was sometimes task-focused, and people were not always fully involved in decisions about their care and support. Opportunities to promote choice, independence, meaningful engagement and community involvement were not always available to everyone, particularly people with reduced mobility or those who spent much of their time in their bedrooms. Systems used to monitor quality and safety had not identified a number of the concerns found during our assessment, which meant the provider could not always demonstrate effective oversight of the service.

However, people, relatives and professionals were generally positive about the service and told us staff were kind, caring and approachable. People told us they felt safe. Staff knew people well and understood their histories, preferences and communication needs, and relatives described managers as responsive and willing to listen to concerns. The provider worked effectively with healthcare professionals and community partners to support people's needs. People had access to healthcare services, nutritious meals and a clean, well-maintained environment. Staff felt supported by managers and benefited from wellbeing initiatives, training opportunities and recognition schemes. The provider also demonstrated a commitment to improvement through participation in research projects, development programmes and wider sector partnerships.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective Good
  • Caring No rating
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

Following the assessment, the provider responded positively to the feedback received and had already begun taking action to address the shortfalls identified.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment and safeguarding.

  2. Effective

    Good

    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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    No rating

    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 9 September 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 9 September 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  3. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 9 September 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
  4. Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.

Registration details

Registered manager
Susan Walsh
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service with nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

6 inspection reports, latest 2 February 2022. Latest assessment published 9 September 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
01859586 (opens Companies House)

Rossefield Nursing Homes Limited runs 2 services, all in Yorkshire and the Humber. 0 are rated Good or Outstanding, 1 is rated Requires improvement or Inadequate and 1 has no rating yet.

Other services run by Rossefield Nursing Homes Limited

  1. –
    Thornton Hill Care Home Not yet rated. Care home, North Yorkshire

Getting help from City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Well Springs Nursing Home provide nursing care?
Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Well Springs Nursing Home as a care home with nursing.
How many beds does Well Springs Nursing Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 63 beds at Well Springs Nursing Home.
When was Well Springs Nursing Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Well Springs Nursing Home was published on 9 September 2026.
Who runs Well Springs Nursing Home?
Well Springs Nursing Home is run by Rossefield Nursing Homes Limited. It runs 2 services, all in Yorkshire and the Humber.
What is Well Springs Nursing Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 9 September 2026.

Contact

Phone
01274 488855
Address
122 Leylands Lane, Heaton, Bradford, BD9 5QU Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Malvern Nursing Home (Good, 0.1 miles away) and Emm Lane Care Home (Good, 0.5 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Malvern Nursing Home Good, 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Emm Lane Care Home Good, 0.5 miles away
  3. G
    Greystones Nursing Home Good, 0.6 miles away
  4. RI
    Spring Mount Requires improvement, 0.6 miles away
  5. G
    Hazel Bank Care Home Good, 0.6 miles away

See all care homes in Bradford

See all care homes in Manningham