CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 16 Homeside Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, with suitable risk assessments, enough staff and safe medicines systems. Inspectors recommended further action on water hygiene and found one recruitment record did not include evidence of satisfactory conduct from previous health and social care employment.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had appropriate training, supervision and competency checks. People's needs and choices were assessed, their legal rights were respected, and they received suitable support with food, health and daily living.
- Caring?
- Good
- People appeared comfortable and well cared for. Staff respected privacy and dignity, encouraged independence, and involved people and relatives in decisions where possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's needs, preferences and communication styles. People were supported with activities, holidays, relationships, special occasions and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a warm and open culture, with visible management and staff who understood their roles. However, medicines audits did not always check all records thoroughly, so a new checking system was introduced after discussion with inspectors.
What inspectors found, December 2019
16 Homeside Close was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some improvements still needed in water hygiene, recruitment checks and medicines audits.
Inspectors visited on 06 November 2019. They spoke with four people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records. They also sought feedback from community professionals.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities and associated conditions. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and good support with healthcare, food, communication, activities and independence. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was an improvement from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection for Safe and Effective. The other three ratings stayed Good.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood how people communicated through words, facial expressions and body language.
“People were comfortable and felt secure in staff presence. They sought out staff's company for reassurance and companionship.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and routines. People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and enjoy opportunities that mattered to them.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make decisions and do things for themselves. The home supported community activities, holidays and positive risk taking.
“People had choice and control of their care.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff received induction, regular training, supervision, appraisals and competency checks. Inspectors found they had the knowledge needed to support people's complex needs.
“Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people safely.” from the report
Good management culture
Inspectors found the home warm, friendly and welcoming. Staff and people could speak with management, and quality systems were used to identify and address issues.
“The atmosphere in the service was warm, friendly and welcoming.” from the report
Water hygiene actions
needs fixingInspectors found lime scale on showerheads and taps. Earlier actions to remove lime scale and unused piping had not been completed, so the provider was given a recommendation to reduce infection risk.
“The provider had failed to ensure these actions had been undertaken.” from the report
Recruitment evidence
needs fixingFor one staff member previously employed in health or social care, the provider had not obtained evidence of satisfactory conduct. Induction, supervision and monitoring were in place to reduce the risk.
“However, the provider had not always sought evidence of satisfactory conduct for a staff member who was previously employed in health and social care roles.” from the report
Medicines audit checks
needs fixingMedicines audits did not always review every person's records thoroughly. The registered manager introduced a new system after inspectors raised this, and there had been no medicine errors since the previous inspection.
“We found that medicines audits were not as effective as they could be and did not always review all people's medicine records in a robust way.” from the report
- 01Have the showerheads and bathroom taps been fully de-scaled, and has the unused section of water piping been removed?
- 02How do you now record and assess risk when evidence of satisfactory conduct from a previous care or health employer cannot be obtained?
- 03How are medicines audits carried out now, and do they check every person's medicine record?
- 04How will you make sure staff continue to support each person's communication needs, choices and independence?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and giving feedback about the home?
This was an announced, planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions; the Provider Information Return could not be accessed because of technical problems, and the previous rating was Requires Improvement overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 2019 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.
What inspectors found, November 2018
16 Homeside Close was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and better management, but safety and health support still needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 16 October 2018 and looked at the home, care, records, medicines and how it was managed. They spoke with people living there, the manager and care workers, and reviewed four people's care records.
The home was caring, responsive and well-led, all rated Good. People were treated kindly, involved in choices and supported by staff who knew them well. Care planning, complaints information and quality checks had improved since the previous inspection.
Safe and Effective were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in infection control, risk assessments, night-time checks, best-interest decisions and follow-up of health appointments. The overall rating means the home was not consistently meeting the expected standard and needed further improvement.
Kind relationships
People were supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors saw calm, friendly and sensitive interactions.
“People received kind, compassionate care from dedicated staff who knew them well.” from the report
Choice and dignity
People were asked about food, activities and clothing. Their privacy, preferred names and choices were respected.
“People were involved in care decisions and were asked how support should be provided.” from the report
Improved care planning
New care plans gave staff more person-centred information. Information was increasingly available in accessible formats, including pictures and symbols.
“The introduction of new care plans had increased the service's focus on person-centred care planning and delivery.” from the report
Better oversight
The provider introduced stronger audits, action plans and quality oversight. This helped identify and track improvements since the previous inspection.
“Improved governance systems were in place to gauge the safety and quality of people's care.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and mandatory training and supervision had improved. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome cleaning and waste arrangements increased the risk of cross-contamination. The nominated infection control champion had not received specific training.
“People were not always protected from the risks of infection.” from the report
Incomplete risk and night-check records
seriousSome support areas, including moving and handling and skin integrity, did not have risk assessments. Night records did not show clearly who had been checked or what had happened.
“The service's night care records did not individualise checks to each person.” from the report
Health appointments
seriousSome recommended health appointments and monitoring were not recorded as completed. Inspectors said this could put a person's health and wellbeing at risk.
“People's health and social care appointments were not always followed-up, which compromised their right to a healthy lifestyle.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
seriousA best-interest decision about a medical procedure had not been completed or recorded. The home was asked to review its Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards practice.
“The service did not ensure they followed the requirements set out in the MCA and DoLS on every occasion.” from the report
Incomplete end of life planning
needs fixingEnd of life preferences had been considered for some people but not everyone. One plan did not fully record funeral, cultural or religious preferences.
“End of life care planning was evident for only some people; more documentation about people's preferences for a peaceful, dignified death is required.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and review accidents and incidents, and what changes have been made after the choking and trip incidents?
- 02How are night-time checks recorded so the home can show who was checked, when and what support was provided?
- 03Which risk assessments and care plans are now in place for moving and handling, skin integrity and other support needs?
- 04How do you make sure Mental Capacity Act best-interest decisions are completed and recorded before medical procedures?
- 05How do you track and follow up recommended health appointments and monitoring for each person?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, the premises, care, records, medicines and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 2018 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.
Every inspection of 16 Homeside Close
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 April 2017.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
83 live-in carers within about an hour of Windsor and Maidenhead
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.