CQC report explained · a residential care home
Langley Haven Care Home
30 Rambler Lane, Langley, Slough, SL3 7RR
Rated Good: inspectors found the service 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.
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. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.