Hayes Park Nursing Home
- Care home
- 49 beds
- Nursing care
- Dementia care
- Registered since 2011
- Evington, Leicester, East Midlands
Requires improvement
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
At a glance
4 ratings
Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.
16 months
since the latest rating was published.
18 of 90
rated care homes in Leicester are rated Requires improvement, like this one.
Hayes Park Nursing Home: inspection record
Rated Requires improvement in July 2025, down from Good.
| 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
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Oakdale Care Limited (Good, 0.3 miles away) and Evington Grange (Good, 0.4 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- G Oakdale Care Limited Good, 0.3 miles away
- G Evington Grange Good, 0.4 miles away
- G Gwendolen Road Care Home Good, 0.4 miles away
- G Oak House Good, 0.4 miles away
- G Goodwood Orchard Care Home Good, 0.6 miles away
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 2 July 2025 (assessment visit 3 April 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
Date of inspection 20 and 21 May 2025. Hayes Park Nursing Home is a care home with nursing for 49 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The inspection was triggered by information we held about the service. At the time of the inspection, 30 people were living at the service. The last rating for this service was good. At this inspection, the rating has changed to requires improvement.
- Safe No rating
- Effective No rating
- Caring No rating
- Responsive Good
- Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary
During this inspection, we identified 2 breaches of regulation; safe care and treatment in relation to infection prevention and control, including the environment and governance of the service.
The internal and external environment needed improving. We identified some risks, and the premises required redecoration and refurbishment. Whilst the provider had identified some improvements were required, we were not sufficiently assured actions were robust enough.
The provider had processes to manage infection prevention and control, including cleaning procedures. However, areas of the environment showed additional cleaning improvements were required. The provider’s internal audits and checks had not identified these issues.
The provider’s governance systems and procedures that assessed, reviewed, monitored and mitigated risks, and checked quality were not fully effective.
Clinical care needs and risks were assessed and well managed. Whilst staff had received training in dementia care, they would benefit from further training and upskilling. Care plan guidance for staff to ensure people received person centred approaches to care and treatment needed further development. Staff guidance for people’s mental health and psychological care needs lacked person centred information.
There were enough qualified, experienced and competent staff to meet peoples’ individual care needs and safety. Staff had been recruited following safety checks and received ongoing training and support.
Staff understood their role and responsibilities about how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. People and their relatives were involved in discussions and decisions about how care needs were met, including receiving opportunities to share their experience of the service.
People received their prescribed medicines when required. People were supported to access health services and staff worked in partnership with external health care professionals. People’s dietary and hydration needs were assessed and monitored. People received a choice of meals, drinks and snacks.
Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards people in their care, and, overall, they were responsive to people’s individual care needs. However this required further monitoring and some improvements.
The registered manager had an open and transparent learning culture. Lessons were learnt from incidents, accidents, complaints and whistleblowing and shared with staff, to ensure improvements were made.
Overall, staff were positive about working for the provider and confirmed improvements had been made and were ongoing, in relation to communication and ways of working. This included developing staff roles, responsibilities, expectations and accountability. A series of team building meetings had been facilitated by the management team.
-
Safe
No rating
Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.
At our last inspection rating inspection (published 8 March 2022) we rated this key question Good. At this inspection, 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.
-
Effective
No rating
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 rated inspection (published 8 March 2022) we rated this key question Good. At this inspection, the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.
-
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 rated inspection (published 8 March 2022) we rated this key question Good. At this inspection the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.
-
Responsive
Good
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last rated inspection (published 8 March 2022) we rated this key question Good. At this inspection the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
-
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 rated inspection (published 8 March 2022) we rated this key question Good. At this inspection 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 governance.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Safe was rated Requires improvement on 2 July 2025. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
- Effective was rated Requires improvement on 2 July 2025. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
- Caring was rated Requires improvement on 2 July 2025. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
- Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 2 July 2025. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
Registration details
- Registered with the CQC since
- What it provides
- Care home service with nursing
- Who it supports
- Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability, Younger Adults
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)9 inspection reports, latest 8 March 2022. Latest assessment published 2 July 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
- Huskards New Care LtdBrand: Huskards Care
- Ownership type
- Organisation
- Companies House number
- 07268284 (opens Companies House)
Getting help from Leicester 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 Leicester City Council
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 0116 454 1004, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: Leicester City Council
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does Hayes Park Nursing Home provide nursing care?
- Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Hayes Park Nursing Home as a care home with nursing.
- How many beds does Hayes Park Nursing Home have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 49 beds at Hayes Park Nursing Home.
- When was Hayes Park Nursing Home last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Hayes Park Nursing Home was published on 2 July 2025.
- Who runs Hayes Park Nursing Home?
- Hayes Park Nursing Home is run by Huskards New Care Ltd.
- What is Hayes Park Nursing Home's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 2 July 2025.
Contact
- Phone
- 0116 273 1866
- Address
- 2 Cropthorne Avenue, Leicester, LE5 4QJ Map (opens Google Maps)
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Oakdale Care Limited (Good, 0.3 miles away) and Evington Grange (Good, 0.4 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- G Oakdale Care Limited Good, 0.3 miles away
- G Evington Grange Good, 0.4 miles away
- G Gwendolen Road Care Home Good, 0.4 miles away
- G Oak House Good, 0.4 miles away
- G Goodwood Orchard Care Home Good, 0.6 miles away