Harwood House

“Date of assessment: 24 to 27 November 2025. Harwood House is a care home with nursing providing support to older people. At the time of assessment, 27 people were using the service. The assessment was prompted by concerns raised regarding management of people’s medicine. The service also did not have an assessment completed under the current methodology. We found the provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to the management of medicines, recruitment, duty of candour and good governance. We discussed the issues and discrepancies we identified with the management of the service. They started making changes and improvements during the site visit. The provider did not always ensure they used robust assurance systems and governance processes which operated across all levels of the service. This meant people were at risk of harm and not receiving care they needed. The provider did not always ensure safe and proper management of medicines and recruitment. We found the provider did not inform us and the local authority about some of the notifiable incidents in a timely manner. The provider did not always ensure staff kept clear and complete records of people’s care and treatment monitoring and risk mitigation. Staff had not received all their mandatory training, however, there was a training plan being implemented to bring all staff up to date with their training to ensure they had most current knowledge and skills. The provider needed to make some improvements to ensure the environment was developed to meet the needs of people living with dementia. The provider did not demonstrate they maintained consistent records to meet requirements of duty of candour. The duty of candour is a general duty to be open and transparent with people receiving care. It applies to every health and social care provider that CQC regulates. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.”

“We found the management led an inclusive, caring and compassionate culture of the service with clear dedication and were well respected by people, relatives and staff. The management ensured sufficient staff were available to meet people's needs, covering shifts to ensure consistency in care was provided. Staff felt well supported and believed everyone worked to provide a good service for people. People had meaningful activities and opportunities to pursue their interests in their local area with others. People’s relatives were involved in reviewing and planning their care. People’s views and decisions were listened to and considered. The provider and the manager worked together to ensure the risks of a closed culture were minimised so that people received support based on transparency, respect and a positive culture in the service. Staff were supported to be involved in the development and continuous improvement of the service. The manager was visible within the service and worked together with staff leading by example. Staff told us how they protected people from abuse and how they would report incidents, accidents and other concerns. They understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents or allegations of abuse. Staff felt confident the issues would be addressed appropriately by the manager and the provider. Staff ensured people were protected from the risk of acquiring an infection during the provision of their care. Staff supported people to access different services and support from health and social care professionals to promote and achieve positive outcomes for people. Staff understood the principles of good care and treatment. People’s rights around privacy and dignity were considered and respected.”