Rated Care Homes

Hazel Garth

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 3 ratings

    Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.

  • This month

    The latest rating was published.

  • 19 of 88

    rated care homes in Wakefield are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Hazel Garth: inspection record

Care home, 24 beds, Wakefield

Rated Requires improvement in October 2026, down from Good.

Hazel Garth: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Holyrood House Care Home (Good, 0.3 miles away) and Ivy Dene (Good, 0.7 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Holyrood House Care Home Good, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Ivy Dene Good, 0.7 miles away
  3. G
    The Manse Residential Home Good, 0.8 miles away
  4. –
    The Rivers Not yet rated, 0.9 miles away
  5. G
    Stella House Residential Care Home Good, 1.5 miles away

See all care homes in Wakefield

See all care homes in Knottingley

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 21 October 2026 (assessment visit 3 August 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

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.

  • Safe No rating
  • Effective No rating
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive No rating
  • Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary

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.


  1. Safe

    No rating

    Safe
    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.
    This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

  2. Effective

    No rating

    Effective
    Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

    This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.


  3. Caring

    Good

    Caring
    Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

    This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    No rating

    Responsive
    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

    This meant people’s needs were not always met.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led
    Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

    At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

    This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

    The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 21 October 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 21 October 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 21 October 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.
  4. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 21 October 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.

Registration details

Registered manager
Patrycja Walesiak
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Older People, Younger Adults

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

6 inspection reports, latest 20 November 2020. Latest assessment published 21 October 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.

The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.

Who runs it

Ownership type
Organisation

Wakefield MDC runs 8 services, all in Yorkshire and the Humber. 7 are rated Good or Outstanding and 1 is rated Requires improvement or Inadequate.

Other services run by Wakefield MDC

  1. G
    Dovecote Lodge Good. Care home, Wakefield
  2. G
    Flanshaw Lodge Good. Care home, Wakefield
  3. G
    Hazel Garth Reablement Hub Good. Home care, Wakefield
  4. G
    Peripatetic Service - Sherwood Court Good. Home care, Wakefield

See all 8 services run by Wakefield MDC

Getting help from City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Hazel Garth provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Hazel Garth as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Hazel Garth have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 24 beds at Hazel Garth.
When was Hazel Garth last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Hazel Garth was published on 21 October 2026.
Who runs Hazel Garth?
Hazel Garth is run by Wakefield MDC. It runs 8 services, all in Yorkshire and the Humber.
What is Hazel Garth's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 21 October 2026.

Contact

Phone
01977 722405
Address
49 Hazel Road, Knottingley, WF11 0LG Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Holyrood House Care Home (Good, 0.3 miles away) and Ivy Dene (Good, 0.7 miles away).

Nearest care homes:

  1. G
    Holyrood House Care Home Good, 0.3 miles away
  2. G
    Ivy Dene Good, 0.7 miles away
  3. G
    The Manse Residential Home Good, 0.8 miles away
  4. –
    The Rivers Not yet rated, 0.9 miles away
  5. G
    Stella House Residential Care Home Good, 1.5 miles away

See all care homes in Wakefield

See all care homes in Knottingley