CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Harbour Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had risk assessments, call bells and safety checks. Staffing was sufficient, medicines were stored and administered safely, and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff were trained and supported, and people received nutritional support and help from health professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said they were happy with their care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect, while supporting independence and personal choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed monthly. The home offered activities, supported communication needs and gave people opportunities to discuss end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture and systems for checking quality and making improvements. The management team was building a staff team for future nursing care.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Harbour Residential Care Centre is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with improvements sustained since 2019.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the home was rated Requires Improvement in April 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience visited on 9 and 10 January 2023. They spoke with 10 people and nine staff, reviewed three care records and checked other records, including medicines, recruitment, maintenance and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe and received good care. There were enough staff, medicines were stored and recorded safely, and the home was clean. Staff were trained, people were supported with food and healthcare, and care plans reflected people's needs and preferences.
People described staff as kind and respectful. There were activities, support for relationships and opportunities to discuss end of life wishes. All five areas were rated Good. The inspectors said improvement had been sustained and built upon, so the overall rating rose from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and respectful care
People were positive about the care and inspectors observed patient, respectful support. Staff protected privacy and encouraged independence.
“We observed staff caring for people in a kind and respectful manner.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and call bells were answered promptly. Medicines were locked away, checked and recorded accurately.
“During our inspection we observed a calm atmosphere with call bells being answered promptly.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans included people's needs, wishes, preferences and communication requirements. They were reviewed each month.
“The sample of plans we reviewed were clear and gave a good overall picture of the person's needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could join varied activities, receive one-to-one visits and take part in community activities such as a choir.
“There was a varied activities programme in place for people to take part in if they wished to.” from the report
Food did not suit every taste
minorSome people said the food did not always match their individual tastes, although overall feedback was positive.
“Although at times, people told us food didn't always meet individual tastes, feedback was generally positive.” from the report
Outside space needed tidying
minorThe outdoor area needed some tidying before warmer weather. The home said this would be done.
“This did require some tidying up before the warmer weather arrived and we were assured this would be done.” from the report
- 01What nursing support is available now, and when will the home begin accepting people with nursing needs?
- 02How will you make sure the food suits my relative's tastes and dietary needs?
- 03What improvements have been made to the outdoor space since the inspection?
- 04How will staffing levels change if more people move into the home?
- 05How often will my relative's care plan and risks be reviewed?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, after the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 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, April 2019
Requires Improvement; the home had been in special measures, but inspectors found safer, kinder care and no current breaches.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 7 March 2019. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home had improved significantly since the previous inspection, which was rated Inadequate and found seven breaches. Inspectors found safer staffing, better risk planning, safer medicines systems, improved training and more personalised care. People and relatives said staff were kind and that people felt safe.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement because the provider needed to show that the improvements could continue when more people lived at the home. The report says there were no breaches at this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described the care as safe and kind. Inspectors saw warm, supportive interactions and discreet personal care.
“Throughout our inspection we observed kind, supportive interactions from staff towards people.” from the report
Improved staffing and training
The home had recruited more staff, and inspectors found enough staff on duty during the visit. Staff had completed mandatory training and received regular support.
“At this inspection we found that sufficient staff were deployed” from the report
Better risk and medicines arrangements
Risk plans were in place and reviewed. Medicines were administered by trained staff and stored, administered and disposed of safely.
“Medicines were managed safely by competent staff.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Care plans recorded people's interests, routines and preferences. Activities included group events and one-to-one time for people who stayed mainly in their rooms.
“People who spent most of the time in their rooms received regular one to one time with staff.” from the report
Cleaner, brighter environment
The home was clean and fresh smelling. Bedrooms and shared areas were maintained and adapted for people's mobility needs.
“The home was clean and fresh smelling throughout.” from the report
Cream application records
needs fixingStaff did not always sign records to show that topical creams had been applied. A daily checking system was introduced during the inspection, but the home needed to show it worked consistently.
“However, staff had only signed infrequently to demonstrate that creams had been applied.” from the report
Equality information in care plans
minorCare plans did not always record people's equality-related needs in enough detail, including preferences about carers' gender and cultural or religious requirements.
“people's protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010 were not always considered in detail in people's care plans.” from the report
People's formal involvement
needs fixingThe home had not yet created formal systems for people to have input into how the service was run.
“Systems had not yet been developed to enable people to have formal input into the running of the service.” from the report
Sustaining improvements
needs fixingInspectors wanted more time and evidence that the improvements would continue when more people moved into the home.
“the provider needs to demonstrate that the improvements we found can be sustained with higher occupancy.” from the report
- 01How will you maintain staffing levels and care quality as more people move into the home?
- 02How do you now check that topical creams are applied and recorded every time?
- 03How will you record and meet preferences about the gender of carers, culture and religion?
- 04How can residents formally influence how the home is run?
- 05What nursing or health support is available now that the registration for nursing care was cancelled?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 2019 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 Harbour Care Centre
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Inspected but not ratedSafe: Insufficient evidence to rateEffective: Insufficient evidence to rateResponsive: Insufficient evidence to rateWell-led: Insufficient evidence to rate
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 October 2011.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.