Rated Care Homes

Harrier Lodge

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

Rated Good in July 2026 under the previous provider, Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd.

At a glance

  • 4 ratings

    Its last inspection improved it from Inadequate to Good.

  • 4 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 332 of 445

    rated care homes in Kent are rated Good, like this one.

Harrier Lodge: inspection record

Care home with nursing, 65 beds, Kent

Rated Good in July 2026, up from Inadequate.

Harrier Lodge: 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

  1. G
    Whitstable House Good, 0.4 miles away
  2. RI
    Maylands Requires improvement, 0.5 miles away
  3. G
    Bluebells Care Home Good, 0.7 miles away
  4. RI
    Bradbury Grange Requires improvement, 0.7 miles away
  5. RI
    Whitstable Nursing Home Requires improvement, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Kent

See all care homes in Whitstable

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 2 July 2026 (assessment visit 15 April 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

This inspection took place from 20 May to 12 June 2026. Harrier Lodge is a residential service providing personal and nursing care to older people, some of whom are living with dementia. Harrier Lodge is run by 2 companies as a dual registration and is jointly responsible for the services at the home.

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

We carried out this inspection to assess whether the service had improved compliance with legal regulations following our last inspection in October 2025, where it was in breach of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, person-centred care, dignity and respect, safe staffing, consent and governance.

At this inspection, the service had made improvements and was no longer in breach of any regulations. However, further work was needed to embed these improvements. We found that care was not always delivered in a person-centred way, and staff did not consistently demonstrate an understanding of people who may experience anxiety. The service also did not always work collaboratively with other professionals and services. People, relatives and staff did not always feel the registered manager was visible and engaged them in the service.

Risks to people were now managed to reduce harm to them. There were management plans in place that provided guidance to staff to reduce risks to people. People were now safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew the actions to take to report abuse.

Incidents and accidents were reviewed, analysed, and actions taken to ensure learning from them. People’s medicines were administered and managed safely. We observed that there were now enough staff available to support people. Staff had an induction when they started their jobs, and had received training in their roles. Staff were trained in infection control and followed procedures to reduce risks of infection.

People’s nutritional needs were met. People were encouraged to eat a balanced diet and drink enough to keep hydrated. People had access to the healthcare services they needed to maintain good health, and staff liaised effectively with other services.

People were now supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s consent was sought for the care and support they received.

People were supported to maintain good health. People’s end-of-life wishes were documented in their care plans and followed when required. People were supported and encouraged to participate in activities they enjoyed.

People and their relatives knew how to raise complaints about the service. Complaints were appropriately addressed in line with the provider’s procedure. The service had effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of care.

  1. Safe

    Good

    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 inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

    This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

  2. Effective

    Good

    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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

    This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. Caring

    Good

    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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

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

  4. Responsive

    Good

    Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

    This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    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 inadequate. 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.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 2 July 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
  2. Ask what the new provider has changed since taking over.
  3. Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.

Registration details

Registered manager
Susan Simmonds
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service with nursing
Who it supports
Dementia, Mental Health, Older People, Physical Disability, Younger Adults

Inspection report

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

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

Who runs it

Provider
Care UK Care Services LimitedBrand: Care UK
Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
02571516 (opens Companies House)
Previous provider
  • Care UK Community Partnerships Ltdregistered

Care UK Care Services Limited runs 226 services in England, 80 of them in the South East. 59 are rated Good or Outstanding, 8 are rated Requires improvement or Inadequate and 159 have no rating yet.

Other services run by Care UK Care Services Limited

  1. O
    Collingwood Court Outstanding. Care home, North Tyneside, North East
  2. O
    Cuttlebrook Hall Outstanding. Care home, Oxfordshire
  3. O
    Halecroft Grange Outstanding. Care home, Trafford, North West
  4. O
    Priors House Outstanding. Care home with nursing, Warwickshire, West Midlands

See all 226 services run by Care UK Care Services Limited

Getting help from Kent County 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 Harrier Lodge provide nursing care?
Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Harrier Lodge as a care home with nursing.
How many beds does Harrier Lodge have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 65 beds at Harrier Lodge.
When was Harrier Lodge last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Harrier Lodge was published on 2 July 2026.
Who runs Harrier Lodge?
Harrier Lodge is run by Care UK Care Services Limited. It runs 226 services in England, 80 of them in the South East.
What is Harrier Lodge's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 2 July 2026.

Contact

Phone
01227 931810
Address
Thanet Way, Whitstable, CT5 3FS Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Whitstable House Good, 0.4 miles away
  2. RI
    Maylands Requires improvement, 0.5 miles away
  3. G
    Bluebells Care Home Good, 0.7 miles away
  4. RI
    Bradbury Grange Requires improvement, 0.7 miles away
  5. RI
    Whitstable Nursing Home Requires improvement, 1 mile away

See all care homes in Kent

See all care homes in Whitstable