Rated Care Homes

Laurel Court (Didsbury)

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 5 ratings

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

  • 8 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 11 of 71

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

Laurel Court (Didsbury): inspection record

Care home with nursing, 91 beds, Manchester

Rated Requires improvement in February 2026, down from Good.

Laurel Court (Didsbury): 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: Downing House (Good, 0.3 miles away) and Brocklehurst Nursing Home (Good, 0.5 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Downing House Good, 0.3 miles away
  2. –
    Abberton Road Not yet rated, 0.3 miles away
  3. –
    Dermot Murphy Centre Not yet rated, 0.5 miles away
  4. G
    Brocklehurst Nursing Home Good, 0.5 miles away
  5. –
    Willowbank Lodge Not yet rated, 0.5 miles away

See all care homes in Manchester

See all care homes in Withington

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 6 February 2026 (assessment visit 9 October 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of assessment: 14 October 2025 to 13 November 2025. This assessment was prompted in part following an incident where a person sustained significant bruising. This incident was investigated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and it was determined no regulatory action was required. Laurel Court (Didsbury) is a care home and is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and the treatment of disease, disorder and injury for up to 91 people. The service was supporting 89 people at the time of the assessment. Further work was required to ensure that risks were consistently identified, assessed, and mitigated. The ongoing building work across the home had not been fully risk assessed, and this had posed risks to people. Staff required additional training to strengthen their understanding of contemporaneous documentation requirements and to enhance their confidence in using the electronic care planning system effectively. Medicines were not safely managed. Further work was required to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed and documentation was correctly completed. Governance audits to identify and improve where there were gaps in the safe management of medicines were not always effective. Staff required further guidance on the reporting and recording of accidents and incidents, as well as on monitoring when pain relief might be needed. Staff were recruited safely and were offered opportunities to progress in their roles. While staff felt able to raise concerns, these were not always communicated directly to the management team, highlighting an area where further encouragement and support could be provided. We observed that staff had a good understanding of people's needs and demonstrated kind and respectful interactions. They were able to describe how they supported individuals and promoted independence, which was commendable. To support continuous improvement, governance processes required strengthening to ensure they were robust and captured the right information to drive service development. The provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. The provider did not fully assess where there were risks following a period of building work at the home. The management of medicines was unsafe and posed risks to people. There was a failure to use appropriate equipment to move and handle 1 person safely. The provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance. Governance processes were not robust and were not capturing where there were gaps in recording and care planning. Governance processes had not identified the gaps in staff training when using the electronic care planning system or in the safe management of medicines. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

  • Safe No rating
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary
  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 people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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 governance and oversight.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 6 February 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 6 February 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
  3. Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.

Registration details

Registered manager
Kelly Champkin
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service with nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Younger Adults

Inspection report

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

9 inspection reports, latest 9 March 2022. Latest assessment published 6 February 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

Provider
Methodist HomesBrand: Methodist Homes
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
04043124 (opens Companies House)
Charity number
1083995

Methodist Homes runs 93 services in England, 16 of them in the North West. 83 are rated Good or Outstanding and 10 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.

Other services run by Methodist Homes

  1. O
    Briar Hill House Outstanding. Care home with nursing, Staffordshire, West Midlands
  2. O
    Horfield Lodge Outstanding. Care home with nursing, Bristol, South West
  3. O
    Mapplewell Manor Outstanding. Care home, Barnsley, Yorkshire and the Humber
  4. O
    Queens Court Outstanding. Care home, Cambridgeshire, East of England

See all 93 services run by Methodist Homes

Getting help from Manchester 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 Laurel Court (Didsbury) provide nursing care?
Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Laurel Court (Didsbury) as a care home with nursing.
How many beds does Laurel Court (Didsbury) have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 91 beds at Laurel Court (Didsbury).
When was Laurel Court (Didsbury) last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Laurel Court (Didsbury) was published on 6 February 2026.
Who runs Laurel Court (Didsbury)?
Laurel Court (Didsbury) is run by Methodist Homes. It runs 93 services in England, 16 of them in the North West.
What is Laurel Court (Didsbury)'s CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 6 February 2026.

Contact

Address
1a Candleford Road, Didsbury, M20 3JH Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Downing House (Good, 0.3 miles away) and Brocklehurst Nursing Home (Good, 0.5 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Downing House Good, 0.3 miles away
  2. –
    Abberton Road Not yet rated, 0.3 miles away
  3. –
    Dermot Murphy Centre Not yet rated, 0.5 miles away
  4. G
    Brocklehurst Nursing Home Good, 0.5 miles away
  5. –
    Willowbank Lodge Not yet rated, 0.5 miles away

See all care homes in Manchester

See all care homes in Withington