Rated Care Homes

Moorleigh Nursing Home

RI

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.

  • 7 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 29 of 138

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

Moorleigh Nursing Home: inspection record

Care home with nursing, 36 beds, Leeds

Rated Requires improvement in March 2026, down from Good.

Moorleigh 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

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: St Armands Court (Good, 1.6 miles away) and Wakefield Road (Good, 1.9 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Augustus Court Requires improvement, 1.5 miles away
  2. RI
    Springfield Requires improvement, 1.5 miles away
  3. RI
    Highfield Care Centre Requires improvement, 1.5 miles away
  4. RI
    The Coach House Care Home Requires improvement, 1.6 miles away
  5. G
    St Armands Court Good, 1.6 miles away

See all care homes in Leeds

See all care homes in Garforth

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 31 March 2026 (assessment visit 10 February 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Date of Assessment: We visited the home on 11 February, 18 February and 26 February and continued to review evidence remotely. The service is a nursing home providing support to older people living with dementia, nursing needs, sensory impairments and physical disabilities.

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

Staff demonstrated a positive learning culture, supported by proactive incident reporting and reflective practice. People told us they felt safe, and safeguarding arrangements were robust.

Staff worked collaboratively with external professionals to support people to live healthier lives. Consent was obtained appropriately, and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Care supported positive outcomes and quality of life. People’s needs were assessed and reviewed regularly; however, people and their relatives were not always fully involved in reviewing care plans.

Staff told us they felt supported and empowered to speak up, and diversity and inclusion were actively promoted. The provider demonstrated a clear commitment to learning and innovation.

Staff knew people well, and care was person centred‑. Care plans were sufficiently detailed to guide consistent and safe support.

The environment was clean; however, several areas, particularly bathrooms, toilets and the satellite kitchen required renovation and refurbishment.

Although staffing levels met the required numbers, many people required two to one support, which reduced the time staff were able to spend engaging meaningfully with people.

Although the activity coordinator made a positive impact, their limited contracted hours reduced opportunities for people to participate in regular, meaningful activities.

People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was personalised, and people were supported to express their identity and preferences. Staff were attentive to immediate needs, and workforce wellbeing was prioritised.

Medicines were not always managed safely, and infection prevention and control measures were not consistently followed.

Leadership was visible and effective, and there was a culture of learning and continuous improvement. Governance systems were in place; however, they did not consistently identify gaps in medicines management or infection prevention and control.

Communication was inclusive, and feedback was actively sought to drive improvement.

We identified breaches of regulation in relation to safe and effective treatment, premises and equipment and good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns we found during this assessment.

  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 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 regulation in relation to Safe care and tretment and premises and equipment.

  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 good. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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 good. At this assessment, the rating remained 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 good. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating as 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 regulation in relation to good governance

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 31 March 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 31 March 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
Susan Coleclough
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service with nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Physical Disability, Sensory Impairment

Inspection report

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

3 inspection reports, latest 26 October 2022. Latest assessment published 31 March 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
10963465 (opens Companies House)

Lions Meadow Ltd runs 2 services, all in Yorkshire and the Humber. 1 is rated Good or Outstanding and 1 is rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.

Other services run by Lions Meadow Ltd

  1. G
    Bollingbroke House Good. Care home, Barnsley

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.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Moorleigh Nursing Home provide nursing care?
Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Moorleigh Nursing Home as a care home with nursing.
How many beds does Moorleigh Nursing Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 36 beds at Moorleigh Nursing Home.
When was Moorleigh Nursing Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Moorleigh Nursing Home was published on 31 March 2026.
Who runs Moorleigh Nursing Home?
Moorleigh Nursing Home is run by Lions Meadow Ltd. It runs 2 services, all in Yorkshire and the Humber.
What is Moorleigh Nursing Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 31 March 2026.

Contact

Address
278 Gibson Lane, Kippax, Leeds, LS25 7JN Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: St Armands Court (Good, 1.6 miles away) and Wakefield Road (Good, 1.9 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. RI
    Augustus Court Requires improvement, 1.5 miles away
  2. RI
    Springfield Requires improvement, 1.5 miles away
  3. RI
    Highfield Care Centre Requires improvement, 1.5 miles away
  4. RI
    The Coach House Care Home Requires improvement, 1.6 miles away
  5. G
    St Armands Court Good, 1.6 miles away

See all care homes in Leeds

See all care homes in Garforth