CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Harvey Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, care planning and leadership failures despite some immediate improvements.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 and 15 November 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, medicines, staffing, incident and management records.
They found people were at risk because safety checks, staffing, medicines, infection control and support for distressed behaviour were not managed well. Care plans were not kept up to date, and staff did not always follow them or support people's choices.
The home had no registered manager in post. Its audits and other checks had not found or fixed important problems. Inspectors also found that legal safeguards and restrictions were not always handled correctly.
The provider took some immediate action between the two inspection visits, including fixing the heating, improving parts of the environment and providing extra behavioural support. However, the overall rating was Inadequate, and the home was placed in special measures.
Kind staff
People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors also saw staff speaking to people respectfully and kindly.
“People and relatives told us they felt staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Immediate response
The provider responded to the inspectors' urgent concerns and made some early changes before the second visit.
“We found the provider was open and responsive to making immediate improvements.” from the report
Family contact
Staff supported people to keep in contact with their families, and there were no restrictions on visits.
“Staff supported people to maintain contact with their families.” from the report
People were at risk of harm
seriousRisks linked to food and drink, distressed behaviour, the environment and incidents were not managed effectively. Inspectors found several hazards, including faulty fire doors, overloaded sockets, mould and unsecured chemicals.
“Risks to people's safety were not managed effectively and this put people at risk of harm.” from the report
Unsafe medicines management
seriousControlled drugs, medicine records, creams, allergy information and some instructions were not managed safely. Inspectors were initially unable to establish where a controlled drug was or how much was held.
“Medicines were not managed safely. This was a breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014” from the report
Staffing gaps
seriousThe home did not clearly show that people received the required one-to-one or two-to-one support. Inspectors observed a person without their required one-to-one staff member.
“Sufficient staffing was not deployed to meet people's needs. This was a breach of Regulation 18 (staffing) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014” from the report
Restrictions and consent
seriousA DoLS condition was not followed, and another person was subject to restrictions without consent or proper consideration of less restrictive options.
“The service was not compliant with DoLS conditions and had imposed restrictions without consent.” from the report
Out-of-date care plans
needs fixingCare plans were not updated when people's needs changed. Staff did not always follow communication plans or involve people, relatives and professionals in planning care.
“Care plans had not been updated when people's needs had changed. This meant there was limited guidance in place for staff on how to meet people's needs.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure the required one-to-one and two-to-one staffing is always in place?
- 02How are controlled drugs, medicine records, creams, allergies and when-required medicines now checked?
- 03What action has been taken to remove mould, repair fire doors and other building hazards, and improve cleaning?
- 04How are care plans being updated when people's needs change, and how do managers check that staff follow them?
- 05Who is now responsible for managing the home, and how is progress against the CQC action plan being monitored?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided, with a second visit to check urgent action. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 January 2024 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, August 2017
Harvey Lane was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was an announced visit on 10 July 2017. One inspector visited the home, spoke with three people, a relative and four staff, and reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment files, training and quality checks.
The home supported six people and could accommodate up to eight people with learning disabilities who needed personal care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments and appropriate safeguarding and recruitment checks.
Staff supported people to make choices, access healthcare, eat healthily and take part in activities they enjoyed. Inspectors saw kind relationships, respect for privacy and dignity, and care plans that were reviewed and adapted to people's needs.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the home had improved its work on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards since the previous inspection.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and a detailed system for administering, storing and checking medicines.
“People were supported by a sufficient number of competent staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make their own decisions, take positive risks and work towards personal goals such as using public transport independently.
“Staff respected people's independence and supported them to achieve goals” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people's personalities and preferences and adapted their communication. Inspectors observed positive and trusting relationships.
“We observed positive, fun interactions between staff and people living in the home and noticed that they had built strong, trusting relationships.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
People helped plan their care and activities. Records included their preferences, goals, communication needs and emotional support plans.
“There were 'easy-read' plans in place within the care records, supported by pictures which made them accessible.” from the report
Limited survey feedback
minorThe home had a quality survey, but the manager said not enough people always completed it. Families should ask how the home collects feedback from people and relatives.
“There was a quality assurance survey, however the registered manager commented that the uptake of this was not always as good as they hoped” from the report
- 01How will you support my relative to make their own decisions and give consent to care?
- 02How will you keep my relative's medicines, including any 'as required' medicines, safely reviewed and recorded?
- 03How will you adapt communication and care plans to my relative's preferences, emotions and changing needs?
- 04What activities, education, work or community opportunities could my relative take part in?
- 05How can my relative and our family give feedback or raise a complaint, especially if completing a survey is difficult?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with the overall rating and each question rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 2017 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 Harvey Lane
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- January 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.