Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Hazelgrove Court Care Home

Requires improvementpublished 24 March 2025, 18 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, May 2023

Requires Improvement; inspectors found people were generally protected and cared for, but cleanliness and management checks were not good enough.

This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 21 March 2023, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.

The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with the Safe and Well-led areas also rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found dirty and cluttered areas, and said infection control practices were not always followed. Some daily personal care records and staff training records were incomplete.

There were also positive findings. People told inspectors they felt safe, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, and staff were recruited with appropriate checks. Staff and relatives described an open and supportive culture.

The home had improved since the previous inspection, including care plans and risk management. However, the provider remained in breach of Regulation 17 because its checks had not led to effective action on cleanliness, records and training.

What inspectors praised
  • People felt safe

    People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to report concerns, and systems were in place to protect people from abuse.

    “People told us they felt safe.” from the report
  • Medicines were managed safely

    Medicine records and stocks were checked, medicines were stored safely, and people said they received medicines on time.

    “Medicines were managed safely. Medicines administration records were up to date and accurate.” from the report
  • Risks were assessed

    Care plans included detailed information about risks such as skin damage, diabetes, moving and handling, and nutrition. Accidents and incidents were reviewed to reduce the chance of recurrence.

    “Risks to people's health and well-being had been identified and assessed.” from the report
  • Supportive culture

    Staff said they could speak openly with managers about concerns. People, relatives and professionals also gave positive feedback about the staff and management.

    “The registered manager created an environment which was open and inclusive.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Cleanliness and clutter

    serious

    Inspectors found dirty and untidy areas, including food stains and corridors needing cleaning. Cluttered areas and an uncomfortable shower room affected some people's wellbeing.

    “The cleanliness of the home was of a poor standard.” from the report
  • Infection control

    serious

    Staff had received infection control training, but inspectors saw that the policy was not always followed. Poor cleanliness increased the risk of infection.

    “Poor cleanliness increased the risk of infection.” from the report
  • Incomplete personal care records

    needs fixing

    Daily records did not always show the personal hygiene support people had received. This meant managers could not effectively monitor personal care.

    “Daily records for personal hygiene care were not completed accurately.” from the report
  • Training records

    needs fixing

    There was no recorded evidence of recent catheter or wound care training, even though staff said they had completed it. This made it harder for managers to monitor staff performance.

    “The registered manager had not ensured staff training was accurately recorded.” from the report
  • Shortage of domestic staff

    needs fixing

    Staff and the registered manager said there were not enough domestic staff, which affected the home's ability to keep it clean. Agency staff were also still being used, although recruitment had reduced this slightly.

    “The registered manager told us that the service did not have enough domestic staff, and this was impacting on the ability to keep the service clean.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to remove the clutter and improve cleaning in the areas inspectors found dirty or untidy?
  2. 02How do you now check that infection control procedures are being followed in practice?
  3. 03How are daily personal hygiene records checked for accuracy and completeness?
  4. 04What evidence can you show that staff have recent catheter and wound care training?
  5. 05How many domestic staff are now in post, and how often are agency staff being used?

This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried over from the last comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2022

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found staffing, care records and management checks were not consistently strong enough to keep people safe.

This was an unannounced focused inspection after concerns about staffing and the management of people's care needs. Inspectors visited on three dates, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

Inspectors found there were not always enough regular staff. High use of agency staff added pressure, and agency workers did not always know people's needs or follow their care plans. Care records and risk assessments were not always up to date, so staff could miss changes in people's health.

Management checks had not found or acted on these problems quickly enough. The home breached the rules on safe care and treatment and good governance. The provider put an action plan in place, increased staffing and strengthened the leadership team, but the overall rating changed from Good in 2018 to Requires Improvement.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and caring staff

    People and most relatives said staff worked hard and genuinely cared about them. Regular staff knew people well.

    “People and most relatives told us staff worked hard to help support people and genuinely cared about them.” from the report
  • Medicines generally managed safely

    Inspectors found medicines were generally managed safely, and people said they received them on time. Some paper records still needed checking during the move to an electronic system.

    “People told us they received their medicines on time.” from the report
  • Infection control measures

    Inspectors found personal protective equipment, staff training and cleaning arrangements in place. The home followed infection control procedures during outbreaks and visiting followed government guidance.

    “PPE was available throughout the home. Staff had received training in donning and doffing. Cleaning regimes were in place.” from the report
  • Immediate improvement action

    The provider accepted the concerns and introduced an action plan, increased staffing and strengthened the leadership presence. New staff had also been recruited.

    “The provider listened to the feedback given and took immediate action. Additional staffing levels were introduced, new staff had been recruited.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Not enough regular staff

    serious

    People and relatives said there were not always enough staff. Some people spent longer in bed and were not always offered baths or showers, while regular staff faced extra pressure from high agency use.

    “People and relatives told us there was not always enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
  • Out-of-date risk information

    serious

    Care records did not always describe people's current health needs or risks, including choking and falls. Staff did not always identify or act on changes quickly enough.

    “Care records for people's specific health needs were not always up to date to guide staff on how to manage and monitor those needs safely.” from the report
  • Weak management checks

    serious

    The provider's monitoring systems had not identified important problems with care, incidents, staffing, training and the home environment. This meant problems were not consistently addressed promptly.

    “The provider's quality monitoring systems and processes had failed to ensure there was suitable oversight of the home.” from the report
  • Agency staff deployment

    serious

    Agency staff did not always know the needs of the people they supported or follow care plans. The provider needed to improve how agency workers were deployed and managed.

    “However, the deployment and management of agency staff needed to be reviewed to ensure they were following people's care plans and relieving pressures on regular staff.” from the report
  • Some areas needed cleaning and repair

    needs fixing

    Some areas needed decluttering, cleaning schedules did not cover all equipment and parts of the home and equipment looked worn. The provider needed to improve its checks of the environment.

    “Some areas of the home required de-cluttering, cleaning schedules needed reviewing to include all equipment and, the home required refurbishment as some areas and equipment were looking worn and tired.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How many regular staff are now working on each shift, and how are staffing levels matched to residents' needs?
  2. 02How do you make sure agency staff read and follow each person's current care plan?
  3. 03What has changed to keep risk assessments and care records up to date, especially for choking, falls and changes in health?
  4. 04How are accidents and incidents now reviewed, and how are lessons shared with staff and relatives?
  5. 05What progress has been made with the action plan, including the manager's CQC registration and the quality checks?

This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the report says ratings for the other questions were carried over from the previous inspection published on 25 August 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Hazelgrove Court Care Home

4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Hazelgrove Court Care Home →

  2. March 2022Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Hazelgrove Court Care Home →

  3. August 2018Goodstayed Good
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. June 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. March 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. August 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. April 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

31 live-in carers within about an hour of Redcar and Cleveland

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 £1,280 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.

“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
Roy A., about Alison G.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Judith W., about Petty Tutsirai C.
See live-in carers near Redcar and ClevelandProfiles, 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.