CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 2 East Park Road Harrogate
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and monitored, medicines were managed safely, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Infection prevention arrangements were also found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- Support plans reflected people's needs, choices and health needs. Staff were trained and supervised, and people were supported with food, healthcare, activities and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Care records, risk assessments and audits had improved. People and staff were encouraged to share their views, and managers worked with other organisations to improve the service.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 7 June 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with all 6 people using the service, 5 relatives and 4 staff. They also reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, risk and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, care plans, staff training and quality checks had improved. People were supported with their choices, health, activities and independence.
The previous inspection, published in June 2022, rated the service Requires Improvement and found breaches relating to medicines and governance. At this inspection, the provider was no longer in breach of those regulations and the overall rating changed to Good.
Safer medicines
The home had improved its medicine records and guidance, including for medicines given only when needed. Staff were trained to give medicines safely and people were supported to make choices about them.
“People received the right medication at the right time from staff who were appropriately trained to provide this care safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were updated and included people's health needs, preferences, goals and choices. People were supported to be independent and take part in activities that mattered to them.
“People's support plans were up to date and reflected their care and health needs, likes and dislikes and gave clear guidance for staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff understood people's individual needs and protected their privacy and dignity. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Improved management
The home had stronger systems for recording accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns. Regular audits helped identify and address issues.
“Audits were carried out regularly by the registered manager and were able to identify and address issues effectively.” from the report
Some areas were not checked
minorThis inspection focused on Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this visit, so the Good overall rating does not come entirely from a new assessment of every area.
“This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions safe, effective and Well-led which contain those requirements.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that the improvements to medicine records and 'as and when required' medicines are being maintained?
- 02How are people's risk assessments and support plans reviewed when their needs or goals change?
- 03What were the Caring and Responsive ratings at the previous inspection, and what has changed in those areas since then?
- 04How do people and relatives contribute to service meetings and decisions about activities and support?
- 05How do your regular audits identify and correct any new problems?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 July 2023 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.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but gaps in risk assessments, care records and management checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 6 May 2022. Two inspectors, two medicines specialists and an Expert by Experience spoke with five people, three relatives and six staff. They reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They were supported to make choices, take part in activities, keep in touch with others and access healthcare and the local community. Staff knew people well and supported their independence.
Inspectors found important safety and recording problems. Some risks had not been identified or reviewed after accidents. Care records were out of date and did not always explain people's needs or the support required. Records for some when-required medicines were not always clear.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The report says this was the first inspection of the newly registered service, and the previous provider's service was rated Good in August 2018.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff were compassionate, respectful and interested in people's wellbeing. People were supported as equals and their privacy and dignity were protected.
“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
People were supported to make choices, develop skills and try new experiences. Staff helped people take part in activities and access the community.
“People had the opportunity to try new experiences, develop new skills and gain independence.” from the report
Good communication support
Staff understood people's individual communication needs. Information was provided in formats people could understand, including braille.
“Important information was translated to braille which helped people know what was likely to happen during the day” from the report
Positive staff relationships
Staff turnover was very low and staff had known many people for years. This helped staff understand people's needs and provide consistent support.
“Staff knew people well and whilst we found no harm had occurred as a result of the shortfalls, the lack of information increased the risk of harm.” from the report
Risks were not always managed
seriousInspectors found that some environmental risks had not been identified or assessed. Risk assessments were not always updated after accidents, and it was unclear whether people had been offered support afterwards.
“Risks to people had not always been assessed and managed.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
seriousRecords did not always explain people's medical conditions, behaviours or required level of support. Some records dated from 2019 had no evidence of review.
“People's care records needed reviewing and did not include all the information needed to provide safe care.” from the report
Medicine recording
needs fixingWhen-required medicines were given when needed, but instructions and records did not always match or follow best practice guidance.
“The protocols in place did not always give clear instruction to staff and some details did not always match the medication administration record.” from the report
Management checks were not effective
seriousThe home's audits and governance systems did not reliably identify risks or show that care needs had been assessed and managed. Actions from meetings were sometimes delayed.
“The governance systems and care documentation were not robust or developed enough to demonstrate that people's safety and care needs had been fully assessed.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make the cellar safe and to assess all environmental risks?
- 02How have care records been updated to explain each person's medical conditions, behaviours and support needs?
- 03How are risk assessments reviewed after accidents, and how do you check that people receive appropriate follow-up support?
- 04How have instructions and records for when-required medicines been brought into line with current guidance?
- 05What action has been completed in response to the two regulatory breaches, and how is progress being checked?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including care, medicines, infection control, staffing and management; it was also carried out to assess the Right support, right care, right culture principles and provide the newly registered service with a rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 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 2 East Park Road Harrogate
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- 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.