Hazel Garth

Updated 3 August 2026

Dates of assessment: 10 August to 13 August 2026. Hazel Garth is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 24 people over the age of 18 and people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection 19 people were living at the service.
The assessment was carried out in line with CQC’s assessment priorities.
Systems and processes were not always effective in ensuring people consistently received safe, personalised and well-monitored care. Although improvements had recently been made to care plans and risk assessments, records were not always accurate, complete or reflective of people’s current needs. Risks relating to health, nutrition, weight loss, and other ongoing health conditions were not always monitored effectively, and action was not always taken promptly when concerns were identified. Shortfalls in medicines management, safeguarding oversight and record keeping meant the provider could not always demonstrate people were receiving safe care.
People generally felt safe and safeguarding procedures were understood by staff. However, concerns were not always reported to external agencies in a timely way and opportunities to learn from incidents and embed improvements were not consistently demonstrated. Staffing arrangements did not always ensure enough suitably skilled staff were available to meet people's needs.
People were supported to maintain relationships and participate in activities within the home. However, opportunities for people to access the wider community were limited and people were not always able to engage in activities and experiences outside of the service in line with their preferences.
Leadership and governance arrangements were not consistently effective. Quality assurance systems had failed to identify several issues found during the assessment, including concerns relating to medicines management, care records, health monitoring and staffing oversight. Although managers responded positively to concerns raised during the assessment and had begun implementing improvements, governance systems had not ensured risks were identified, acted upon and sustained.
However, people living at Hazel Garth were supported by staff who were kind, caring and committed to promoting their wellbeing. People spoke positively about staff and told us they felt safe, respected and able to make choices about their daily lives. Staff knew people well and supported them in a way that recognised their individual preferences, backgrounds and wishes. People had access to healthcare services when needed, were supported with their medicines, and the service worked collaboratively with a range of healthcare professionals.

We identified a breach of regulation relating to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 3 August 2026

People told us they were happy living at Hazel Garth and consistently described staff as kind, caring and respectful. People said staff treated them with dignity, listened to them and supported them to make choices about their daily lives. Relatives also spoke positively about the care provided and highlighted the positive relationships that had developed between people and staff. Several relatives described staff as compassionate and committed to ensuring people's needs were met.
Most people told us they felt safe living at the service. People said staff responded when support was needed and relatives generally felt their family members were safe and well cared for. People enjoyed the food provided and told us they were offered choices at mealtimes. Staff encouraged people to maintain their hydration, particularly during periods of hot weather, and relatives commented positively on the quality of meals and support provided.
People were supported to maintain their independence and make decisions about their daily routines, including when they got up, went to bed and how they spent their time. Staff knew people well and understood their individual preferences, personalities and support needs. People's privacy was respected and staff sought consent before providing care and support.
People described a range of activities available within the home, including quizzes, games, music, entertainers, therapy animal visits and the recently introduced pool table. People enjoyed spending time together and spoke positively about opportunities for social interaction. However, people and relatives told us opportunities to access the wider community and participate in outings away from the service were limited. Some relatives felt people would benefit from more opportunities to leave the home and remain connected with their local community.
While feedback about care was largely positive, some people and relatives expressed concerns about staffing levels and the use of agency staff. Relatives told us agency staff did not always know people well. Some relatives also raised concerns about communication and consistency, particularly when concerns had been raised.
Overall, people's experiences were positive and reflected caring relationships with staff who valued and respected them. However, improvements to staffing arrangements, community access, communication and the monitoring of people's health and wellbeing were needed to ensure people consistently received high-quality, person-centred care and support.