Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Harboro

Goodpublished 10 November 2025, 10 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2018

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records and notification issues to keep under review.

The home supports five people with learning disabilities and complex health needs. Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 6 February 2018. They spoke with people, relatives, managers and care staff, and checked care files, staff records and management systems.

The overall rating stayed Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, medicines were managed safely, health and dietary needs were met, and people were supported with activities and daily choices.

There were some points to improve. The home needed to notify the CQC about all safeguarding matters, update written speech and language guidance, and correct a difference between two epilepsy care plans. The report did not identify serious risks or concerns.

What inspectors praised
  • Personalised care

    Care plans described people's routines, preferences, communication and support needs. Staff were able to explain how each person liked to be supported.

    “Clear person centred care plans were in place detailing people's interests, likes, dislikes and the support routines for the day.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful staff

    Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. Staff understood how to protect privacy and dignity and how to communicate with people in different ways.

    “Our observations showed that people living at Harboro had formed positive relations with the staff team.” from the report
  • Staff training

    Staff received induction, specialist training and regular competency checks for complex health needs such as epilepsy and suction equipment.

    “This meant the service had a robust system in place to check that the staff were competent to meet people's assessed needs effectively.” from the report
  • Safe medicines

    Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Records showed people received medicines as prescribed, including emergency epilepsy medicines when needed outside the home.

    “People's medicines were safely managed. Staff had been trained on the safe administration of medicines” from the report
  • Activities and access

    People were supported to take part in activities and holidays. Drivers were available so activities could continue even when staff on duty could not drive.

    “The provider had employed drivers which could be pre booked to ensure people were able to access their activities even if the staff on duty did not drive themselves.” from the report
  • Quality monitoring

    The home used monthly audits, surveys, management checks and action plans to monitor care and identify improvements.

    “A robust quality assurance framework was in place.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Safeguarding notifications

    needs fixing

    The home was reminded to tell the CQC about every safeguarding matter involving people it supported, including matters first raised by another organisation.

    “We discussed with the registered manager the need to inform the Care Quality Commission about all safeguardings' concerning people supported by the service, even when they were initially raised by a third party.” from the report
  • Outdated health guidance

    needs fixing

    Written speech and language guidance still said that one person's fluids needed thickening, although staff said this was no longer required. Inspectors recommended that the written guidance be updated.

    “We recommend that the service asks SALT to update their written guidance to reflect the verbal advice they had been given.” from the report
  • Different epilepsy instructions

    needs fixing

    One person's general care plan and epilepsy plan gave different instructions about when to call an ambulance after a seizure. The manager said this would be corrected.

    “We noted that one person's person centred care plan had a discrepancy with the person's epilepsy care plan with regard to how soon an ambulance should be called if a seizure continued.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have the written speech and language instructions been updated, and how are staff told about changes to them?
  2. 02How do you make sure all safeguarding matters are notified to the CQC, including concerns first raised by another organisation?
  3. 03Has the difference between the epilepsy care plan and the person-centred care plan been corrected?
  4. 04How are staff checked as competent to support people with complex health needs, including epilepsy rescue medication?
  5. 05How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality areas and checking the overall rating; the report says the rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 2018 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Harboro

2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Harboro →

  2. January 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. December 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2013

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 May 2013.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Trafford

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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.

“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
Marion L., about Primrose N.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
Katrina R., about Camille F.
See live-in carers near TraffordProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.