Rated Care Homes

Nightingales Nursing Home

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 3 ratings

    Rated Good at every inspection since 2016.

  • 2 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 116 of 148

    rated care homes in Leicestershire are rated Good, like this one.

Nightingales Nursing Home: inspection record

Care home with nursing, 38 beds, Leicestershire

Rated Good in September 2026.

Nightingales 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

  1. G
    Conifer Lodge Residential Home Good, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. RI
    Curtis Weston House Requires improvement, less than 0.1 miles away
  3. G
    Apple House Good, 0.3 miles away
  4. G
    Magna Good, 0.3 miles away
  5. RI
    Wigston Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in Leicestershire

See all care homes in Wigston

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 1 September 2026 (assessment visit 13 July 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

We carried out this assessment between 3 and 14 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

There was a proactive culture of safety and learning from any safety incidents. People were supported to stay safe, and staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.

Risk assessment tools were used for managing skin integrity, malnutrition and risks associated with swallowing difficulties. Care plans were developed to support risk management, and these were reviewed with the person and/or their family members Care plans were comprehensive and told staff how to meet people’s needs safely and in the way they preferred. Some risk assessment records we reviewed provided generic advice which was not applicable to the individual. The provider agreed to review these records and update them accordingly.

Staff followed people’s care plans and risk assessments and managed risks appropriately. For example, people were supported to change their position to reduce the risk of pressure sores. Where people had moved into the service with pressure sores, they had healed. Each person had access to an alternating airwave mattress designed to reduce the risk of pressure sores developing.

People’s food and fluid intake was monitored and where there was an identified nutritional risk, additional snacks and fortified drinks were offered. Staff monitored people’s weight and took action such as referring to the community nutrition team or GP for any weight changes. A varied and nutritional diet was provided, and people had a choice of meals or snacks. All meals were home cooked and fresh fruit and vegetables were available.

People had their medicines at the right time and in the right way. Staff had training and had their competency to manage people’s medicines assessed to ensure it was safe and met best practice guidance. Medicine administration records were accurate and up to date. People had their medication reviewed by the prescriber to ensure they remained effective. Medicines were stored safely and securely in line with manufacturers requirements. Additional air-cooling systems had been installed to manage room temperatures during the recent heatwaves. The provider had syringe drivers to support the management of pain and sickness when people where at the end of their life. Staff had additional training and had their competency assessed before having responsibility to administer medicines through the syringe driver. There was no one receiving end of life care at the time of this assessment.

The service provided nursing care and always had qualified nurses on duty. Qualified nurses were supported to keep their practice up to date and to meet the registration requirements of the nursing and midwifery council. They followed best practice advice and guidance; nurses received additional training and had their competency assessed to make sure their practice remained safe and met expected standards. Staff worked closely with external specialist teams to support specific care such as tracheostomy care and gastrostomy feeding.

We received positive feedback from external agencies. They told us how outcomes for one person had significantly improved since they moved to the service. They said managers always ensured a smooth transition when people moved in through thorough assessment and involvement in ongoing reviews. Another said, “We get some lovely feedback from families, and the home staff always provide very thorough assessments.”

The local authorities contract monitoring visit identified areas where improvements were required and asked the provider to follow up on minor actions. The provider had taken action or was in the process of taking action to address these areas.

Staff described the physical and emotional changes they were alert to and required to report for further escalation and attention from a healthcare professional. Staff used a nationally recognised tool to support recognition of deteriorating health and gave us examples of how this tool had been used to support people receiving medical attention in a timely manner. Records showed appropriate referrals to healthcare professionals were made and staff were following the advice and guidance provided. Care staff told us if they reported any deteriorating health to the nursing team, prompt action was taken. A relative told us, “I am so impressed with the communication. They suspected a urine infection last week called the GP and got antibiotics.”

People had choice and autonomy over their lives. Staff understood consent and decision-making requirements. People had their capacity to make decisions assessed and where a person lacked this capacity, a best interest decision was made and recorded.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

There were enough staff to meet people needs. Managers monitored peoples experience daily and adjusted staffing levels as when this was required. Staff told us they had time to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Staff received the training and supervision they required to carry out their roles and to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited in a safe way to make sure, as far as possible, only staff with the right skills and experience were employed.

People were supported by staff who felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. They have a sense of belonging and the ability to contribute to decision making. Staff had access to personalised support that recognised the diversity of the workforce with proactive and reactive measures. There was a low staff turnover of staff with many staff having been employed for many years.

Routine maintenance and safety checks were carried out as required. The provider had a business continuity plan for staff to follow in the event of any incident or emergency. The service was clean and fresh throughout. Separate cleaning staff were employed. Staff had access to the personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons they required. The provider’s policy followed national guidelines for the prevention of infection.

Complaints were investigated and action was taken. For example, following a complaint about communication, a set of guidelines was developed based on the person’s preferences and this was shared with staff, so they understood what was expected of them and the impact this had on the person. The care manager had taken action to encourage more feedback from people and from staff and to make sure that making a complaint was not viewed as negative, but rather as an opportunity to improve and make sure care and support was meeting individual preferences. This demonstrated the providers person centred and open approach.

Managers and staff had a shared vision, strategy, and culture. The culture of the service was person-centred. Leaders, managers and staff had a well-developed understanding of equality, diversity and human rights, and they prioritise safe, high-quality, compassionate care. Staff were motivated to achieve good outcomes for people. They were proud of the service and valued their managers and colleagues. A staff member told us, “The team are like a family.” Another staff member said, “We are a close team and support each other.”

Staff were confident managers would always listen and take action to make improvements where required. They told us they felt supported and were encouraged to learn and develop. Staff praised the new care manager and said the changes they were making were positive.

Mangers had clear and robust governance and oversight of the service. Checks and audits were carried out along with the analyses of risk indicators such as complaints, incidents, accidents and safeguarding. This was used to develop improvement plans which included peoples and staff feedback and views.

  1. 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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

  3. 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained a good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

  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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as 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

  1. Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.
  2. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  3. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Deborah Pears
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service with nursing
Who it supports
Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment

Inspection report

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

7 inspection reports, latest 9 March 2022. Latest assessment published 1 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
03751343 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Leicestershire County 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 Nightingales Nursing Home provide nursing care?
Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Nightingales Nursing Home as a care home with nursing.
How many beds does Nightingales Nursing Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 38 beds at Nightingales Nursing Home.
When was Nightingales Nursing Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Nightingales Nursing Home was published on 1 September 2026.
Who runs Nightingales Nursing Home?
Nightingales Nursing Home is run by Nightingales Nursing Home Limited.
What is Nightingales Nursing Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 1 September 2026.

Contact

Address
35 Aylestone Lane, Wigston, Leicester, LE18 1AB Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Conifer Lodge Residential Home Good, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. RI
    Curtis Weston House Requires improvement, less than 0.1 miles away
  3. G
    Apple House Good, 0.3 miles away
  4. G
    Magna Good, 0.3 miles away
  5. RI
    Wigston Requires improvement, 0.3 miles away

See all care homes in Leicestershire

See all care homes in Wigston