CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Langley Haven Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2025
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and good personalised support, but identified safety, privacy and management problems.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 March 2020. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, a relative, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Responsive care. People had personalised care plans, suitable food and healthcare support. Staff were described as skilled, knowledgeable and kind, and people were supported to make choices and take part in activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Caring and Well-led. Thickening agent used for one person was not stored safely, and personal care was provided in a shared lounge without suitable privacy screens. Managers knew these practices had been happening but had not acted before the inspection.
The provider acted immediately on the storage and privacy concerns and sent CQC an action plan. The previous overall rating was Good in 2017, so the overall rating and three question ratings had worsened by this inspection.
Skilled staff
Inspectors found staff competent, knowledgeable and skilled. Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled and carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“People received personalised care and support specific to their needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were supported to eat and drink enough, with special diets provided. Referrals to healthcare professionals were made when needed.
“People were supported with meals in a dignified way.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in flexible activities and maintain important relationships. Inspectors saw community volunteers engaging people in conversation.
“People were supported to live as full a life as possible and were enabled to participate in activities which interested them.” from the report
Unsafe storage of thickening agent
seriousFourteen containers prescribed for one person were not stored safely. Some were accessible to people living with dementia, creating a risk of choking.
“Prescribed thickening agents were not always stored safely which put people at risk of choking.” from the report
Privacy during personal care
seriousInspectors saw personal care being given in a lounge while other people were present, without suitable screens. The provider took immediate steps after this was raised.
“We observed people receiving personal care in a lounge area of the home where other people were sitting, without the use of appropriate screens designed to respect their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Management did not identify concerns early
needs fixingManagers and staff said the unsafe and undignified practices had been happening for some time. This showed that management oversight had not picked up or corrected them before the inspection.
“This demonstrated a lack of understanding in relation to quality performance as they had not, prior to the inspection, acted to address issues that affected people's lived experience of care.” from the report
Malodour in part of the home
minorOne area was malodorous. The manager had identified this and showed inspectors what action was being taken.
“One part of the home was malodourous, the registered manager was able to demonstrate how this had been identified and what actions were being taken to address this.” from the report
- 01How are prescribed thickening agents now stored, and how do you check that people living with dementia cannot access them?
- 02How do you make sure personal care is given privately and with suitable screens or in a private area?
- 03What actions from the post-inspection action plan have been completed, and what evidence can you show us?
- 04How do managers now check for risks to safety, dignity and privacy before they affect people's daily care?
- 05What has been done to deal with the malodour identified in part of the home?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the previous inspection was in 2017 and the visit took place on 6 March 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 August 2025 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, September 2017
Rated Good, with Outstanding leadership and kind, safe care, although inspectors asked for continued Legionella checks and clearer resuscitation records.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 24 August 2017. They spoke with eight people, three relatives and staff. They reviewed medicines records, care plans, risk assessments, staff files and quality checks. They also observed care and looked around the home.
The home was rated Good overall and remained Good in Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, staffing levels met people's needs and medicines were managed safely. Staff were trained and supported, people received help with food, drink and healthcare, and care was personalised.
The home was rated Outstanding for Well-led. Inspectors found a strong focus on improvement, activities and people's quality of life. They noted projects to reduce infections and falls, regular outings, detailed audits and good links with outside organisations.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff being consistently kind and caring. People said staff were patient, polite and respectful of their privacy and dignity.
“During our inspection, we saw staff were consistently kind and caring.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines records were correctly completed and staff had regular checks of their medicines skills. Inspectors also found enough staff were deployed and call bells were answered promptly.
“The medicines administration records (MAR) were correctly completed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, communication needs and equipment. Inspectors saw staff follow individual plans, including support for mobility and pressure sore prevention.
“We found people's care plans were comprehensive, up-to-date and were based on assessments of their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and social life
People were supported to take part in outings and activities based on their interests. Inspectors found social contact was part of everyday care rather than occasional events.
“The service had a minibus which was used frequently. Instead, trips into the community were the norm.” from the report
Strong improvement work
The home used audits, learning from incidents and projects with outside organisations to improve care. Inspectors highlighted work on hydration, falls prevention and people's social lives.
“A wide range of audits and checks were used to measure the safety of care and quality of the service people received.” from the report
Legionella checks
needs fixingA previous water safety assessment had identified actions. The home increased its checks and a later sample found no Legionella, but inspectors asked it to keep following the relevant safety guidance.
“We recommend that the service ensures continual adherence with the Health and Safety Executive's approved code of practice for the prevention and control of Legionella.” from the report
Dementia training
minorStaff training was generally good, but one staff member thought more staff would benefit from training in supporting people living with dementia.
“Some staff had received training with regard to supporting people living with dementia, although one staff member we spoke with thought that more staff would benefit from this.” from the report
- 01How often are water safety and Legionella checks now completed, and how are the results recorded?
- 02How do you record and review decisions about whether someone should receive resuscitation?
- 03What dementia training do staff receive, and how do you make sure all relevant staff have it?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's dementia, mobility or health needs change?
- 05How do you make sure activities and outings remain suitable for my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the previous Good ratings remained unchanged except for Well-led, which was rated Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 September 2017 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 Langley Haven Care Home
3 rated inspections over 10 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2025Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Slough
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 £1,010 to £1,270 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 11 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.