Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Park Homes ()

Hazel Bank Care Home

Daisy Hill Lane, Daisy Hill, Bradford, BD9 6BN

Goodpublished 31 December 2025, 7 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care and clear progress, but recruitment checks, medicines records and quality monitoring still need strengthening.

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 4 and 5 January 2024. Inspectors, a medicines inspector and an Expert by Experience looked around the home, observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The home had improved since its last inspection, which was rated Inadequate. Inspectors found enough experienced staff, kind relationships, improved care plans, good support with food and health needs, and better monitoring of quality and safety.

Some important improvements were still needed. Recruitment checks were not always complete, records for some topical medicines were inconsistent, and some capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not robust. The overall rating is now Requires Improvement. The home is no longer in Special Measures and was not in breach of regulations at this inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind relationships

    People appeared relaxed with staff. Inspectors saw warm, trusting relationships and said staff respected privacy, dignity and independence.

    People were well supported. Their privacy, dignity, and independence were respected and promoted.from the report
  • Enough experienced staff

    The home had enough staff to keep people safe. People were supported by a consistent and experienced team.

    The provider ensured there were enough staff to support people safely. People were supported by a consistent and experienced team.from the report
  • Good support with needs

    People were supported with nutrition, health care and activities. The home worked closely with health and social care professionals.

    There were close links with other health and social care professionals which included a weekly ward round by the GP.from the report
  • Clear improvement

    The provider had acted on the previous inspection findings. Inspectors found improvements in staffing deployment, nutrition and hydration monitoring, care planning and quality checks.

    The provider had taken positive action to address the issues from the last inspection.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Recruitment checks

    needs fixing

    The provider had not always followed its recruitment policy. Some records were incomplete and one staff member had not had all checks completed.

    They had not always followed their own recruitment policy and we found examples where records were incomplete and one instance where full checks had not been carried out for a staff member.from the report
  • Topical medicine records

    minor

    Medicines were generally managed safely, but records for some non-medicated creams and other topical preparations were inconsistent. The provider was asked to review its monitoring.

    However, there were some recording inconsistencies for non-medicated topical preparations.from the report
  • Mental Capacity Act decisions

    needs fixing

    Some people used bed or chair sensors without the required capacity assessments and best-interest decisions. The provider was asked to improve staff guidance and training.

    We saw examples where people were using bed and chair sensors without the appropriate capacity assessments and best interest decisions being in place.from the report
  • Quality checks

    needs fixing

    Audit systems had improved but were not fully established. They had not identified some problems in care records and staff recruitment.

    We found some areas where the systems required improvement to ensure they were fully embedded and identified all areas robustly.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How have you checked that all current staff recruitment files now contain the required checks?
  2. 02How do you record and monitor the application of topical medicines and creams?
  3. 03How do you make sure bed and chair sensors are covered by proper capacity assessments and best-interest decisions?
  4. 04How are your audits now identifying gaps or contradictions in care records?
  5. 05What further improvements remain on the service improvement plan, and when will they be checked?

This was a follow-up inspection of action from the previous inspection; the report says ratings for key questions not inspected carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2024 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 Hazel Bank Care Home

6 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Hazel Bank Care Home

  2. June 2023Inadequatedown from Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. February 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. August 2021Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. December 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. December 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. May 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. October 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. June 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. February 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Park Homes (UK) Limited

11 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Nearby

Other care homes near Bradford

Cranbourne House

Bradford, BD9 · 0.2 km
Not yet rated
Residential
Not yet ratedcare home

Britannia Care

Bradford, BD8 · 1.1 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 8 years agocare home