Rated Care Homes

The New Wycliffe 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.

  • 13 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 18 of 90

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

The New Wycliffe Home: inspection record

Care home, 49 beds, Leicester

Rated Requires improvement in September 2025, down from Good.

The New Wycliffe 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: Rushey Mead Manor Care and Nursing Home (Good, 0.2 miles away) and Watermead Rose Care Home (Good, 0.5 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
  2. G
    Watermead Rose Care Home Good, 0.5 miles away
  3. G
    Marston Court Good, 0.7 miles away
  4. G
    Gokul-Vrandavan Good, 0.9 miles away
  5. G
    Orchard Court Good, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Leicester

See all care homes in Central Leicester

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 8 September 2025 (assessment visit 3 June 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of onsite inspection 14 and 15 July 2025. The New Wycliffe Home is a care home without nursing for 49 people. The service provides support to older people and younger adults living with dementia, sensory impairment and or a physical disability. This was the provider’s first rated inspection since registration. At the time of the inspection, the provider was working with the local authority to make improvements at the service. The purpose of the inspection was to seek assurances that improvements were being made.

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

At the time of the inspection, 30 people were living at the service. During this inspection we identified 2 breaches of regulation regarding staffing and governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found. At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post. A new manager had submitted an application to register. We are currently assessing this application.

The provider’s learning culture needed to improve. Accidents and incidents were analysed to consider any themes, patterns and learning to reduce recurrence, evidence to show this was discussed with staff was limited. The provider had a complaints policy and whilst we saw some examples of how complaints had been investigated and responded to, information of how the provider implemented learning from them was limited.

The provider’s systems and processes that assessed safety, mitigated risks, and monitored quality had not been fully effective. New and improved procedures needed further time to fully embed and be sustained.

Staffing levels and staff training were identified as needing further improvement. We were not sufficiently assured staffing levels safely met people’s individual care needs, and this also compromised people’s dignity and respect at times.

Recent improvements had been made to how staff were being supported with their work. The provider had safe recruitment procedures.

Improvements were ongoing in assessing people’s care needs and clinical risks, including the involvement of people and their relatives. However, we were concerned about the length of time improvements had taken from when the concerns were identified.

The management of medicines needed improving. This included storing medicines in line with manufacturers guidance, monitoring quantities of medicines and administering them as prescribed.

The provider had made improvements to the safety of the environment, including refurbishment works that were ongoing.

The provider used recognised assessment tools to assess and monitor people’s care needs, including clinical needs. The manager was aware staff required further support in record keeping and was supporting the staff to upskill them.

People had a choice of meals and drinks, and their religious or cultural needs in relation to dietary preferences were assessed and planned for.

Where people had restrictions placed upon their liberty these were done so lawfully. Ongoing improvements were required in ensuring the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was fully adhered to.

Activity coordinators provided a variety of activities for people to participate in, including community activities. External entertainers also visited the service. Postive links with the local community had been developed. Evidence of activities and opportunities for people who were cared for in bed or who chose to remain in their bedroom was limited.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and planned for. Information was provided in a variety of formats to meet people’s individual needs. Resident meetings had recently been reintroduced to enable people to be involved in the service and to make suggestions and provide feedback.

Staff culture was an area of ongoing improvements. The management team had supported staff to develop a greater understanding of their roles, responsibilities and accountability. Whilst there had been a high turn over of staff, new staff had been recruited, resulting in a more stable staff team. The manager had plans to further develop the staff team.

External professionals told us they had experienced some communication difficulties and expressed some concerns in how health needs had sometimes been addressed; however, they confirmed improvements had been made and were ongoing.

  1. Safe

    No rating

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

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

    During this inspection we identified a breach in regulation in relation to staffing.

  2. 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.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

  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.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

  4. Responsive

    Good

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

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  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.

    This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

    During this inspection we identified a breach in regulation in relation to good governance.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 8 September 2025. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 8 September 2025. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Caring was rated Requires improvement on 8 September 2025. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
  4. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 8 September 2025. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.

Registration details

Registered manager
Kate Dhaou
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment, Younger Adults

Inspection report

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

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

Who runs it

Provider
S6 Care Ltd
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
15235063 (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.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does The New Wycliffe Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists The New Wycliffe Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does The New Wycliffe Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 49 beds at The New Wycliffe Home.
When was The New Wycliffe Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for The New Wycliffe Home was published on 8 September 2025.
Who runs The New Wycliffe Home?
The New Wycliffe Home is run by S6 Care Ltd.
What is The New Wycliffe Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 8 September 2025.

Contact

Address
111 Gleneagles Avenue, Leicester, LE4 7YJ Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Rushey Mead Manor Care and Nursing Home (Good, 0.2 miles away) and Watermead Rose Care Home (Good, 0.5 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
  2. G
    Watermead Rose Care Home Good, 0.5 miles away
  3. G
    Marston Court Good, 0.7 miles away
  4. G
    Gokul-Vrandavan Good, 0.9 miles away
  5. G
    Orchard Court Good, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Leicester

See all care homes in Central Leicester