Airedale Residential & Dementia Home
- Care home
- 40 beds
- No nursing
- Dementia care
- Registered since 2021
- Pudsey, Leeds, Yorkshire and the Humber
Good
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
At a glance
3 ratings
Its last inspection improved it from Requires improvement to Good.
10 months
since the latest rating was published.
104 of 138
rated care homes in Leeds are rated Good, like this one.
Airedale Residential & Dementia Home: inspection record
Rated Good in December 2025, up from Requires improvement.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Compare nearby
- G Hutton Manor Care Home Good, 0.1 miles away
- G Acacia Court Good, 0.1 miles away
- G Red Court Care Home & The Grove Care Home - Pudsey Good, 0.3 miles away
- – Gables Nursing Home No overall rating, 0.6 miles away
- G SENSE - 138 Bradford Road Good, 0.9 miles away
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 18 December 2025 (assessment visit 3 September 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
Date of assessment: 2 to 10 October 2025. Airedale Residential Dementia Home is a residential care home providing support to older people living with or without dementia. The assessment was to follow up on the previous rating. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, dignity and respect, staffing and governance. Sufficient improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider no longer remained in breach of these regulations.
- Safe Good
- Effective Good
- Caring Good
- Responsive Good
- Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary
Safeguarding processes were in place, and people consistently reported feeling safe and supported by staff, with risk-reduction measures actively used to manage individual needs however, we found one incident involving unrecorded bruising highlighting a gap in documentation. Measures were in place to monitor the bruise and ensure appropriate follow-up.
Care plans and risk assessments were in place but contained inconsistencies, such as conflicting information about individuals' mobility and eating support needs, which were promptly addressed by the registered manager. However, safety practices were not always robust, with gaps in staff moving and handling competency assessments, although no unsafe moving and handling was observed during the inspection. Nighttime fire drills had not been carried out, we were assured by the Registered Manager a nighttime drill would be undertaken imminently.
The provider did not consistently identify or manage environmental and infection control risks, with concerns such as poor cleanliness, unsecured areas, and hygiene practices observed during the inspection, although these were addressed promptly and safety measures were in place.
Staffing had improved since the previous inspection, with reduced reliance on agency staff and stronger team morale; however, staffing levels and shift patterns did not always meet safe working practices and some staff reported feeling rushed.
Medicines and treatments were managed safely and in line with people’s needs and preferences, with well-maintained records and secure storage, although minor issues such as an outdated emergency bag and a recording error in controlled drug checks were identified and acknowledged by the registered manager.
The provider ensured care and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing individuals’ health, wellbeing, and communication needs. Care was delivered in line with legislation and evidence-based practice, with nutritional and hydration needs well supported. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s needs and worked collaboratively across teams and services to ensure continuity of care. People were encouraged to make healthier lifestyle choices, and their outcomes were regularly monitored. Timely referrals were made when needs changed, and consent was obtained in line with the Mental Capacity Act, with best interest decisions involving families and professionals where necessary.
The provider consistently delivered kind and compassionate care, respecting individuals’ privacy, dignity, and cultural preferences, with staff tailoring support based on personal backgrounds and interests. While activities and staff wellbeing were well supported, people’s independence and autonomy were not always upheld, as some requests were overlooked during observations.
The provider delivered person-centred care by involving people in decisions about their treatment and ensuring continuity through effective collaboration with professionals. They also provided accessible information, responded to feedback, supported equitable access to services, and helped people plan for future care needs, including end-of-life care.
The provider demonstrated a clear and inclusive vision rooted in transparency, equity, and continuous improvement. Staff and leaders were described as approachable, compassionate, and collaborative, fostering a positive culture where concerns could be raised and addressed. While governance systems and staffing policies required strengthening particularly around rest periods and record accuracy the registered manager was proactive in resolving issues and committed to learning. The service worked effectively with external partners, and improvements since the last inspection meant the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.
-
Safe
Good
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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
-
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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
-
Caring
Good
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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
-
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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
-
Well-led
Good
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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
- Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.
Registration details
- Registered manager
- Kasim Scally
- Registered with the CQC since
- What it provides
- Care home service without nursing
- Who it supports
- Dementia, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment, Younger Adults
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)1 inspection report, latest 4 November 2023. Latest assessment published 18 December 2025; 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
- Provider
- Airedale No1 Ltd
- Ownership type
- Organisation
- Companies House number
- 13460958 (opens Companies House)
Getting help from Leeds City Council
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at Leeds City Council
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 0113 222 4401, weekdays 9am to 5pm (Wednesdays from 10am)
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: Leeds City Council
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does Airedale Residential & Dementia Home provide nursing care?
- No. The Care Quality Commission lists Airedale Residential & Dementia Home as a care home without nursing.
- How many beds does Airedale Residential & Dementia Home have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 40 beds at Airedale Residential & Dementia Home.
- When was Airedale Residential & Dementia Home last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Airedale Residential & Dementia Home was published on 18 December 2025.
- Who runs Airedale Residential & Dementia Home?
- Airedale Residential & Dementia Home is run by Airedale No1 Ltd.
- What is Airedale Residential & Dementia Home's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 18 December 2025.
Contact
- Phone
- 0113 257 2138
- Address
- Church Lane, Pudsey, LS28 7RF Map (opens Google Maps)
Compare nearby
- G Hutton Manor Care Home Good, 0.1 miles away
- G Acacia Court Good, 0.1 miles away
- G Red Court Care Home & The Grove Care Home - Pudsey Good, 0.3 miles away
- – Gables Nursing Home No overall rating, 0.6 miles away
- G SENSE - 138 Bradford Road Good, 0.9 miles away