CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 12 Church Avenue Harrogate
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and medicines were generally managed safely. Inspectors recommended reviewing staffing numbers and deployment because support was not always flexible enough after 4pm and at weekends.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with health appointments, food and daily choices. Care plans were personalised but did not always clearly show how people's future goals and aspirations would be achieved.
- Caring?
- Good
- People received kind and compassionate care. Staff understood people's communication needs, respected privacy and dignity, and involved people in decisions about their lives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was tailored to people's needs and interests. People could access information in formats they understood and were supported with activities, relationships, work and community involvement.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible and approachable, and staff felt able to raise concerns. Quality checks were in place, and the provider was working on improvements including refurbishment.
What inspectors found, August 2022
12 Church Avenue Harrogate rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staffing did not always support people's outings.
This was the first inspection since the service registered with the CQC under the current provider. Inspectors visited unannounced on 27 May and 14 June 2022. They spoke with six people, four relatives and seven staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by staff who knew them well, respected their choices and helped them take part in work, activities and community life.
There were some areas to improve. Staffing was not always flexible enough after 4pm and at weekends, which could limit people's opportunities to go out. Records also needed more detail about people's goals, medicines self-management and lessons learned after incidents. The home had plans to replace worn furnishings and refurbish the building.
Kind and respectful care
People said they were happy with how staff treated them. Inspectors saw staff using patient, positive and respectful communication.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make choices, manage their medicines where possible and take part in work, leisure and community activities.
“Staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence be independent and they had control over their own lives.” from the report
Good communication support
Staff understood individual communication styles and provided information in accessible formats, including braille and audio.
“Staff had good awareness, skills and understanding of individual communication needs, they knew how to facilitate communication and when people were trying to tell them something.” from the report
Consistent staff team
Low staff turnover meant people were usually supported by staff who knew them well. Staff received training, supervision and appraisals.
“Staff turnover was very low, which supported people to receive consistent care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Approachable management
Managers were visible and people, relatives and staff could give feedback or raise concerns. The service worked with health and social care organisations.
“Management were visible in the service, approachable and took a genuine interest in what people, staff, family, advocates and other professionals had to say.” from the report
Evening and weekend staffing
needs fixingThere were enough staff during the day and through the week, but not always enough flexibility after 4pm and at weekends. This could restrict people's opportunities to go into the community.
“People and staff told us that needed more staff after 4pm and on a weekend to support them, especially to go out in the community.” from the report
Personal goals not fully recorded
needs fixingCare plans did not always explain clearly how people's future goals and aspirations would be achieved. The provider was changing the care plans at the time of inspection.
“It wasn't always clear how people would meet their future goals and aspirations.” from the report
Tired furnishings
minorThe home was personalised, but some décor was dated and furniture was worn. The provider had a refurbishment plan.
“The home décor was dated and some of the furniture was worn and needed replacing.” from the report
Learning from incidents
needs fixingStaff reported accidents and incidents in several ways, but records did not always show what action had been taken or what had been learned.
“Further work was needed to evidence action taken and lessons learnt.” from the report
Some risk records needed more detail
needs fixingThe risk assessment for one person who took their own medicines needed more information. The provider reviewed it after the inspection.
“However, risk assessments for one person taking medicines themselves needed more information.” from the report
- 01How many staff are available after 4pm and at weekends, and how will you make sure my relative can go out when they want to?
- 02How do you record and review each person's goals, such as shopping independently, work or social activities?
- 03What progress has been made with the planned refurbishment and replacement of worn furniture?
- 04How do you record actions and lessons learned after accidents or incidents?
- 05If my relative manages some medicines themselves, how is their risk assessment kept up to date?
This was the first inspection under the current provider and covered all five key questions, including the care provided, the premises and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 August 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 12 Church Avenue Harrogate
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2020.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.