Rated Care Homes

Harp Place

RI

Requires improvement

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 1 rating

    Only one rating on record, so there is no trend to show yet.

  • 4 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 13 of 65

    rated home care services in Coventry are rated Requires improvement, like this one.

Harp Place: inspection record

Home care, Coventry

Rated Requires improvement in June 2026.

Harp Place: 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: Getta Life Limited (Outstanding, less than 0.1 miles away) and Perspecktive Limited (Good, less than 0.1 miles away).

Nearest home care services:

  1. O
    Getta Life Limited Outstanding, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Perspecktive Limited Good, less than 0.1 miles away
  3. G
    Priority Plus Ltd Coventry Good, 0.1 miles away
  4. –
    Rainbow Care Solutions Coventry & Leicestershire Not yet rated, 0.1 miles away
  5. G
    Ever Care Good, 0.2 miles away

See all home care services in Coventry

See all home care services in Central Coventry

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 12 June 2026 (assessment visit 28 April 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

We assessed Harp Place also known as Deeangels Care Limited on 18 May 2026. We inspected the service because it had not previously been inspected. Harp Place is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. At the time of our assessment, the service supported adults over 65, adults under 65 and people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people. We considered whether care was delivered in line with the principles of Right support, right care, right culture, we looked at whether people were supported to have choice, control, independence, meaningful activity, community inclusion and a good quality of life.
We found shortfalls in the provider’s governance and oversight systems. The provider did not always maintain accurate and complete records in relation to recruitment, training, supervisions and medicines administration. Care plans and risk assessments were not always updated when people’s needs changed. Mental Capacity Assessments were not robust or easily accessible to care staff. The provider had not always identified, recorded, escalated or learnt from incidents effectively.
Some people experienced positive support to access community services, but this was not always consistently planned, reviewed or monitored to ensure it remained meaningful.
However, people and those important to them gave positive feedback about staff. People said staff were kind, reliable and respectful. Relatives and advocates told us staff knew people well and supported them to access the community, attend appointments and improve aspects of their wellbeing. Staff supported people to make choices and promoted some positive outcomes, including improved confidence, hygiene, medicines routines and healthier lifestyles.
The provider was in breach of one legal regulation relating to good governance.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

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

    No rating

    Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.
    This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 - 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. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
    This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

  4. Responsive

    No rating

    Responsive means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
    This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant, people’s needs were not always met.

  5. Well-led

    No rating

    Well-led means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
    This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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 provider was in breach of legal regulation Good Governance.

Questions to ask the service

  1. Safe was rated Requires improvement on 12 June 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
  2. Effective was rated Requires improvement on 12 June 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
  3. Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 12 June 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled.
  4. Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 12 June 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.

Registration details

Registered manager
Dambudzo Chivese
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Domiciliary care service
Who it supports
Learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder, Older People, 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

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
10252578 (opens Companies House)

Getting help from Coventry City 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 Harp Place provide nursing care?
The Care Quality Commission's register does not list nursing care for Harp Place.
When was Harp Place last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Harp Place was published on 12 June 2026.
Who runs Harp Place?
Harp Place is run by Deeangels Care Limited.
What is Harp Place's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 12 June 2026.

Contact

Address
2 Sandy Lane, Radford, Coventry, CV1 4DX Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: Getta Life Limited (Outstanding, less than 0.1 miles away) and Perspecktive Limited (Good, less than 0.1 miles away).

Nearest home care services:

  1. O
    Getta Life Limited Outstanding, less than 0.1 miles away
  2. G
    Perspecktive Limited Good, less than 0.1 miles away
  3. G
    Priority Plus Ltd Coventry Good, 0.1 miles away
  4. –
    Rainbow Care Solutions Coventry & Leicestershire Not yet rated, 0.1 miles away
  5. G
    Ever Care Good, 0.2 miles away

See all home care services in Coventry

See all home care services in Central Coventry