Harwood House
- Care home
- 35 beds
- Nursing care
- Registered since 2011
- Maidenhead, Windsor and Maidenhead, South East
Requires improvement
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
At a glance
3 ratings
Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement.
7 months
since the latest rating was published.
9 of 31
rated care homes in Windsor and Maidenhead are rated Requires improvement, like this one.
Harwood House: inspection record
Rated Requires improvement in March 2026, down from Good.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: 16 Homeside Close (Good, 1.2 miles away) and 5 Winston Court (Good, 1.5 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- G 16 Homeside Close Good, 1.2 miles away
- RI White Lodge Care Home Requires improvement, 1.5 miles away
- G 5 Winston Court Good, 1.5 miles away
- RI St Mark's Care Home Requires improvement, 1.8 miles away
- G Boulters Lock Residential Home Good, 1.9 miles away
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 19 March 2026 (assessment visit 6 November 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
Date of assessment: 24 to 27 November 2025. Harwood House is a care home with nursing providing support to older people. At the time of assessment, 27 people were using the service. The assessment was prompted by concerns raised regarding management of people’s medicine. The service also did not have an assessment completed under the current methodology. We found the provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to the management of medicines, recruitment, duty of candour and good governance. We discussed the issues and discrepancies we identified with the management of the service. They started making changes and improvements during the site visit. The provider did not always ensure they used robust assurance systems and governance processes which operated across all levels of the service. This meant people were at risk of harm and not receiving care they needed. The provider did not always ensure safe and proper management of medicines and recruitment. We found the provider did not inform us and the local authority about some of the notifiable incidents in a timely manner. The provider did not always ensure staff kept clear and complete records of people’s care and treatment monitoring and risk mitigation. Staff had not received all their mandatory training, however, there was a training plan being implemented to bring all staff up to date with their training to ensure they had most current knowledge and skills. The provider needed to make some improvements to ensure the environment was developed to meet the needs of people living with dementia. The provider did not demonstrate they maintained consistent records to meet requirements of duty of candour. The duty of candour is a general duty to be open and transparent with people receiving care. It applies to every health and social care provider that CQC regulates. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
- Safe No rating
- Effective Good
- Caring Good
- Responsive Good
- Well-led No rating
Read the rest of CQC's summary
We found the management led an inclusive, caring and compassionate culture of the service with clear dedication and were well respected by people, relatives and staff. The management ensured sufficient staff were available to meet people's needs, covering shifts to ensure consistency in care was provided. Staff felt well supported and believed everyone worked to provide a good service for people. People had meaningful activities and opportunities to pursue their interests in their local area with others. People’s relatives were involved in reviewing and planning their care. People’s views and decisions were listened to and considered. The provider and the manager worked together to ensure the risks of a closed culture were minimised so that people received support based on transparency, respect and a positive culture in the service. Staff were supported to be involved in the development and continuous improvement of the service. The manager was visible within the service and worked together with staff leading by example. Staff told us how they protected people from abuse and how they would report incidents, accidents and other concerns. They understood their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents or allegations of abuse. Staff felt confident the issues would be addressed appropriately by the manager and the provider. Staff ensured people were protected from the risk of acquiring an infection during the provision of their care. Staff supported people to access different services and support from health and social care professionals to promote and achieve positive outcomes for people. Staff understood the principles of good care and treatment. People’s rights around privacy and dignity were considered and respected.
-
Safe
No rating
Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to management of medicine, staff recruitment, and duty of candour.
-
Effective
Good
Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
-
Caring
Good
Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
-
Responsive
Good
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
-
Well-led
No rating
Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the oversight and governance at the service.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Safe was rated Requires improvement on 19 March 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
- Well-led was rated Requires improvement on 19 March 2026. Ask about changes in management and what has changed since the report.
- Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.
Registration details
- Registered manager
- Rebecca Laing
- Registered with the CQC since
- What it provides
- Care home service with nursing
- Who it supports
- Older People
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)6 inspection reports, latest 23 September 2020. Latest assessment published 19 March 2026; the Care Quality Commission's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports.
The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.
Who runs it
- Provider
- Harwood House Limited
- Ownership type
- Organisation
- Companies House number
- 03314230 (opens Companies House)
Getting help from Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 01628 683744
- Support for carers
- Paying for care: Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does Harwood House provide nursing care?
- Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Harwood House as a care home with nursing.
- How many beds does Harwood House have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 35 beds at Harwood House.
- When was Harwood House last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Harwood House was published on 19 March 2026.
- Who runs Harwood House?
- Harwood House is run by Harwood House Limited.
- What is Harwood House's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 19 March 2026.
Contact
- Phone
- 01628 478000
- Address
- Spring Lane, Cookham Dean, Maidenhead, SL6 6PW Map (opens Google Maps)
Compare nearby
Nearest rated Good or Outstanding: 16 Homeside Close (Good, 1.2 miles away) and 5 Winston Court (Good, 1.5 miles away).
Nearest care homes:
- G 16 Homeside Close Good, 1.2 miles away
- RI White Lodge Care Home Requires improvement, 1.5 miles away
- G 5 Winston Court Good, 1.5 miles away
- RI St Mark's Care Home Requires improvement, 1.8 miles away
- G Boulters Lock Residential Home Good, 1.9 miles away