You are here

Nest HomeCare - Windsor Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 22 June 2018

Our inspection took place on 23 May 2018 and was announced.

This is our first inspection of the service since the provider's registration.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats. It provides a service to younger adults, older people, and people with physical disability, sensory impairment or dementia.

At the time of our inspection, 23 people used the service and there were 16 staff.

The provider is required to have a registered manager as part of their conditions of registration. 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 no manager registered with us.

People were protected from abuse and neglect. Appropriate systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of preventable harm. People’s care risks were appropriately assessed, mitigated and recorded. Recruitment practices and supporting documentation met the requirements set by the applicable legislation. We found appropriate numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs. People’s medicines were safely managed. We made a recommendation about staff training for medicines administration.

The service was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated codes of practice. People were assisted to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. We made a recommendation about the required evidence for people’s enduring and lasting powers of attorney.

Staff induction, training, supervision and spot checks were satisfactory and ensured workers had the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively support people. People’s care preferences, likes and dislikes were assessed, recorded and respected. We found there was collaborative working with other community healthcare professionals. People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

The service was caring. There was complimentary feedback from people who used the service and relatives. People told us they could participate in care planning and reviews and some decisions. People’s privacy and dignity was respected when care was provided to them.

Care plans were appropriately personalised and contained information of how to support people in the right way. We saw there was a complaints system in place which included the ability for people to contact any office-based staff member or the management team. We made a recommendation about compliance with the Accessible Information Standard.

People, staff and others had positive opinions about the management and leadership of the service. There was a good workplace culture and we saw the staff worked well together to ensure good care for people. Audits and checks were used to monitor the safety and quality of care. The provider met the conditions of registration and complied with other relevant legislation related to the adult social care sector. The service had built good relationships with community stakeholders to benefit people who used the service.

Inspection areas



Updated 22 June 2018

The service was safe.

Effective systems were in place to protect people from the risks of abuse or neglect.

Appropriate risk assessments about people�s care were completed and regularly reviewed.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people�s needs, and people expressed there was good continuity of care.

People�s medicines were safely managed.

Incidents and accidents were reported and investigated.



Updated 22 June 2018

The service was effective.

There were satisfactory levels of staff induction, training, supervision and reviews.

People�s consent was obtained and the service complied with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People�s likes, preferences and care routines were well-documented.

The service worked well with other community healthcare professionals.



Updated 22 June 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were patient, dedicated and kind.

People had developed positive relationships with staff.

People were encouraged to participate in care decisions.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected.



Updated 22 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s care was tailored to their needs.

People and relatives knew how to make a complaint.

The service meets people�s communication needs, but can further improve by reviewing the requirements set by the Accessible Information Standard.

People�s end of life care was provided in a dignified manner.



Updated 22 June 2018

The service was well-led.

People and relatives told us the service was well-led.

There was a positive workplace culture with clear organisational goals and objectives.

Staff were involved in the operation of the service and had good access to the management team.

Relevant audits were completed to ensure safe, quality care.