The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Great Park Homecare

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Unit 5, Silversmith Court, 10 High Street, Eton, Windsor, SL4 6AS (01753) 369088

Provided and run by:
Castlepoint Services Ltd

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment 4 June 2026 to 18 June 2026.
Great Park Homecare is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. At the time of this assessment, 11 people were receiving a regulated activity. The provider was not currently providing support to anyone with a learning disability or autistic people.
This was a comprehensive assessment of all quality statements. We carried out this assessment due to the length of time since the previous assessment.
During this assessment, we found significant shortfalls in the provider’s governance, oversight and quality assurance arrangements. Leaders had not established effective systems to identify, monitor and address risks to people’s health, safety and welfare. As a result, the provider was unable to demonstrate they had adequate oversight of the quality and safety of care being delivered.
Recruitment practices were not robust, which increased the risk of people being supported by staff who had not been appropriately vetted. There were also gaps in competency assessment processes, meaning the provider could not demonstrate staff had the necessary knowledge and skills to safely meet people’s assessed needs.
There were limited care plans and risk assessments in place. These lacked clear, consistent and up-to-date guidance for staff regarding people’s care needs, health conditions, identified risks and future care wishes. Important information was either unavailable or incomplete following the provider’s transfer to a new electronic care system. This meant the provider could not be assured staff had access to accurate information to deliver safe and person-centred care, respond appropriately in an emergency or identify deterioration in people’s health and wellbeing.
We found discrepancies between care plans, daily records and electronic medicines administration records (EMARs). Medicines information was not always accurate or complete, and governance systems had failed to identify and address these concerns. We also found there were no protocols in place to guide staff in the safe administration of medicines prescribed for use ‘as required’ (PRN). These failures increased the risk of medicines not being managed safely or in accordance with people’s assessed needs and prescribing instructions.
Quality assurance, audit and governance systems had not been effective. The provider had failed to identify concerns relating to medicines management, recruitment, staff competency, risk assessments and care records. As a result, risks were not consistently identified, assessed, monitored or mitigated. This meant the provider could not demonstrate it was operating effective systems to ensure people received safe, high-quality care or to prevent avoidable harm.
Although these concerns had not resulted in any known harm to people at the time of our assessment, the provider’s lack of oversight meant they could not be assured risks would be identified and addressed promptly. People and relatives consistently told us staff were kind, caring and respectful.
The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, good governance and fit and proper persons employed.
 

21 July 2017

During a routine inspection

Our inspection took place on 21 July 2017 and was announced.

Heritage Healthcare Windsor provides care at home to adults in East Berkshire, South Buckinghamshire and Slough. Only personal care is regulated by law, and our inspection has included evidence about this and not other support offered by the service. The service provides care for older adults, some of whom experience dementia. At the time of our inspection, the service provided support to about 30 people and this was growing.

The service must have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager.

This is our first inspection of the service since their registration with us.

We found people were protected against abuse or neglect. Staff attended training that ensured their knowledge of safeguarding people was up-to-date. People had personalised risk assessments tailored to their support requirements. We saw sufficient staff were deployed to provide people’s support. We found medicines were safely managed but the service should review national best practice guidance. We made a recommendation about the service’s medicines policy.

Staff received appropriate support from the service and management to ensure their knowledge, skills and experience were appropriate for their roles. The service was not compliant with the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This was because the policy and documentation used by the service to record relevant information was not in line with the legal requirements. We made a recommendation about this. People had access and support to visit community healthcare professionals.

Staff at Heritage Healthcare Windsor were caring. The service had received many compliments about the care received. Community healthcare professionals and relatives we surveyed felt staff were kind. People participated in care planning and relatives often contributed to tailoring support packages which were suitable to people’s needs. The service had appropriately considered communication barriers in the provision of personal care and implemented strategies to ensure people and their relatives could hold meaningful conversations.

People had satisfactory support plans which were regularly reviewed. We found the plans contained detailed information relevant to each person who used the service. There was an appropriate complaints system in place and the management team handled concerns robustly.

The service was well-led. There was a positive workplace culture and staff felt that management listened to what they had to say. We saw there were audits and checks completed by the management and provider to measure the safety and quality of care. We found the service did not use any tool to record positive changes they made to the quality of their care. We made a recommendation about the use of an action plan or service improvement plan. The service was very active within the local community, and linked with associations and other organisations to enrich the lives of people who used the service.