- Care home
Harcourt Gardens Care Home
This care home is run by two companies: Care UK Care Services Limited and WT UK Opco 4 Limited. These two companies have a dual registration and are jointly responsible for the services at the home.
Assessment report published 23 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
This inspection took place on 16 and 18 June 2026 and was carried out as part of our planned assessment programme to provide a first rating for this service. Harcourt Gardens Care Home has a dual registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) under 2 providers: Care UK Care Services Limited and WT UK Opco 4 Limited. The home is owned by WT UK Opco 4 Limited and operated by Care UK.
The service is a care home providing residential and nursing care for up to 115 people. At the time of inspection, 62 people were using the service, including people living with dementia, physical disabilities and sensory impairments.
Overall, people received good quality care from staff who were kind, responsive and generally understood their needs. Feedback from people, relatives and professionals was positive. We observed positive interactions between staff and people, and the environment was clean, safe and well maintained. Staff responded appropriately to changes in people’s needs, and referrals to healthcare professionals were made in a timely way.
However, governance systems were not consistently effective in ensuring care was delivered and recorded in line with best practice and legal requirements. We identified inconsistencies in care planning, particularly relating to Mental Capacity Act (MCA) processes, consent and end of life (EOL) planning. While these issues had been identified by the provider, they had not been fully embedded into practice at the time of inspection. This meant there was not always sufficient assurance that care was consistently lawful or person-centred.
We found examples where care was not consistently delivered in line with people’s preferences, including night-time routines. While these issues did not affect everyone, they demonstrated variability in people’s experiences and showed that systems were not always effective in ensuring care followed agreed plans.
The provider had taken steps to address these concerns, including implementing action plans and seeking external support. However, improvements were not fully embedded at the time of inspection.
The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to effective governance. Although systems and processes were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service, these were not always effective in ensuring improvements were implemented and sustained, risks were mitigated, and records were complete and accurate.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People’s experiences of the service were positive overall, with many describing staff as kind, supportive and attentive. A person said, “Staff are good, they know what I need,” and another told us they “love the activities.” Relatives also spoke positively about the care provided, with 1 relative saying, “I cannot fault the support,” and another describing staff as “respectful and attentive to their relative’s needs.”
Observations during the inspection supported this feedback. People were treated with dignity and respect, and staff interacted with people in a calm and reassuring way. Communal areas were vibrant and well used, providing opportunities for social interaction, and people were supported to maintain relationships and take part in activities.
However, people’s experiences were not consistent with everyone. Some people told us they were disturbed during night-time checks that did not reflect their preferences, which were also reflected in care records. Others described limited engagement, with 1 person stating they “just sit and sleep” and felt that “no one is interested,” indicating that opportunities for meaningful involvement were not always tailored to individual needs.
While positive experiences were more common, these examples demonstrated that care was not always consistently personalised or delivered in line with people’s preferences, meaning not all people experienced the same quality of care.