CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hazel Garth
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, followed hygiene and social distancing measures, organised visits, accessed testing and kept its infection prevention and control policy up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements at the home.
The CQC visited the home on 9 November 2020. The visit was announced and focused only on infection prevention and control, including measures linked to coronavirus.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well maintained. Staff had recent infection control training, used protective equipment safely, washed their hands regularly and followed cleaning schedules.
Visits were organised and controlled. The home supported people to stay in contact with relatives and friends by telephone and social media. The CQC was assured about the home's infection control arrangements.
This was not a full inspection and no overall rating was given. The Safe question was marked 'Inspected but not rated', and the other key questions were not assessed in this report.
Clean premises
The home was clean and well maintained. Staff followed cleaning schedules, including for frequently touched surfaces.
“The premises were clean and well-maintained.” from the report
PPE and hand hygiene
Staff had recent infection control training and were observed changing protective equipment appropriately and regularly washing or sanitising their hands.
“We observed staff changed PPE when appropriate, and staff regularly washed and sanitised their hands.” from the report
Safer visiting arrangements
Visits were organised and controlled. Staff also helped people keep in touch with relatives and friends remotely.
“Visits to the home were organised and controlled.” from the report
Infection control systems
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements for testing, safe admissions, managing outbreaks and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the home's current overall CQC rating and when was its latest full inspection?
- 02How are visits organised now, and what happens if there is an infection risk?
- 03How often are staff trained in infection prevention and control, including the safe use of PPE?
- 04How does the home support residents to keep in touch with relatives when in-person visits are restricted?
- 05How are people admitted safely and tested when they first move into the home?
This was a targeted, announced inspection of infection prevention and control only; it did not provide an overall rating or assess the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 2020 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, February 2019
Hazel Garth was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some records and refurbishment work needing attention.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 28 December 2018. Inspectors spoke with six people, two relatives, three care staff and the registered manager. They also looked at the home, three care plans, two staff files and records about how the home was run.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and happy. Staff supported people respectfully, helped them keep their independence and understood their individual needs.
Inspectors found good medicines arrangements, suitable staff training, safe moving and handling, social mealtimes and links with health professionals. They also noted some lingering odours, incomplete detail in some best-interest records, and quality audits that did not always record timescales for actions.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood individual risks and safeguarding procedures. Accidents and incidents were monitored so lessons could be learned.
“People said they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, offered reassurance and respected privacy and dignity. Inspectors saw a friendly and welcoming atmosphere.
“Staff demonstrated respect for people's privacy and dignity” from the report
Good support with daily life
People were supported with medicines, meals, drinks, moving around and healthcare. Mealtimes were sociable and people could choose where to eat.
“People had continuous access to drinks throughout the day.” from the report
Positive management
The manager worked alongside staff and inspectors found motivated staff, open communication and effective teamwork. Feedback from relatives and professionals was positive.
“Staff reported a positive, open and transparent culture in the home.” from the report
Lingering odours
minorThe home was visibly clean, but inspectors noticed some lingering odours. The manager said refurbishment was planned to address this.
“The home was visibly clean with regular cleaning taking place, although there were some lingering odours.” from the report
Some records lacked detail
needs fixingRecords did not always include enough detail about best-interest meetings. The manager said this was being addressed as part of wider improvements to care records.
“although there was not always the detail of best interest meetings recorded.” from the report
Audit actions needed clearer deadlines
minorQuality audits were detailed, but actions identified for completion did not always include timescales. This included refurbishment work.
“some of these needed to ensure actions were recorded with timescales where matters were identified for completion” from the report
One safeguarding record discrepancy
needs fixingInspectors found a discrepancy in the monthly evaluation of one safeguarding referral. The manager said it would be investigated.
“there was a discrepancy in the monthly evaluation of these for one referral.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the planned refurbishment, and have the lingering odours been resolved?
- 02How do you now make sure best-interest meetings are recorded with enough detail?
- 03How are actions from quality audits recorded, monitored and given clear completion dates?
- 04What was learned from the discrepancy in the monthly evaluation of the safeguarding referral?
- 05How will you assess my relative's individual risks, preferences and care needs when they move in?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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 Hazel Garth
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Wakefield
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. 79 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.”
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.