Rated Care Homes

Meadowbank Residential Care Home

G

Good

Rated on

Rating from the Care Quality Commission.

At a glance

  • 2 ratings

    Rated Good at every inspection since 2018.

  • 2 months

    since the latest rating was published.

  • 18 of 31

    rated care homes in Windsor and Maidenhead are rated Good, like this one.

Meadowbank Residential Care Home: inspection record

Care home, 22 beds, Windsor and Maidenhead

Rated Good in August 2026.

Meadowbank Residential Care Home: inspection record: inspection ratings by year, 2015 to 2026
201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026
Overall
Safe
Effective
Caring
Responsive
Well-led

Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Larchfield House Good, 0.5 miles away
  2. G
    Normanhurst Residential Home Good, 0.6 miles away
  3. RI
    Herewards House Requires improvement, 1 mile away
  4. O
    Bramerton Outstanding, 1.2 miles away
  5. –
    Clara Court Not yet rated, 1.2 miles away

See all care homes in Windsor and Maidenhead

See all care homes in Maidenhead

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 21 August 2026 (assessment visit 24 July 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

Meadowbank Residential Care Home provides 24-hour support and personal care for up to 22 older people.

Meadowbank Residential Care Home does not provide nursing support but provides care and accommodation for older people, some of whom may be living with dementia.

  • Safe Good
  • Effective Good
  • Caring Good
  • Responsive Good
  • Well-led Good
Read the rest of CQC's summary

We carried out this assessment from 6 August to 14 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, we highlight key themes and people’s experience.

People were supported by staff who knew how to keep them safe. The registered manager and senior leaders at the home knew people well and ensured that care delivery systems, including risk assessments, were in place which were regularly audited.

Action was taken where improvements to care delivery systems were identified. This included involving people and their relatives in managing risks.

Safeguarding systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff were trained in safeguarding and were knowledgeable of safeguarding systems and recognising and reporting potential abuse. A member of staff told us, “First I would raise it [a concern] to our manager but we do have the option to go straight to the local authority safeguarding team. We have the number.”

Staff were recruited safely into the home. This included having robust shortlisting and interviewing procedures and documentation, gaining references from previous employers, completing a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, and checking right to work status. DBS checks provide information, including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. This meant appointable staff members were of good character to work with vulnerable people.

Staff told us that there was a team in place to ensure people were supported by regular staff. A staff member told us, “We never have a shortage of staff. We have never used agency staff all the time I have been here.”

Safe medication management systems were in place, and people received their medicines safely as prescribed. Staff ensured they followed infection prevention and control practices.

People, their relatives and our observations told us the home was clean and tidy. Staff ensured they followed infection prevention and control practices. A relative told us, “I think it's a really nice place. It's very clean. Parts of the home had recently been decorated, and plans were in place to decorate the remainder.

The registered manager was updating information so that all people were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. A health care professional told us, “Every member of staff we have encountered has been warm, friendly, highly professional, and clearly so knowledgeable in the care they provide.”

The home worked in partnership with healthcare professionals, this meant that people’s care plans had the information they needed to provide the care people wanted and required. A health care professional told us, “The care home has been engaging well with our service. We are commissioned to provide training to care home staff to empower them so that they can do more for themselves. So far, they have been attending both face to face and virtual trainings.” Another health care professional told us, “I can tell they follow our recommendations as things are healing up as they should. I see that they take pressure relieving cushions around with people, so they have them wherever they are sitting.” A relative told us, “Staff all know them [my relative] and understand their physical and emotional needs. The staff always inform me of developments and I'm happy for him the reside here.”

The home followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people needed to have restrictions in place, to keep them safe, this was done in their best interests and followed correct legal procedures, known as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Care plans were person-centred, adequately detailed, and up to date. They contained information about people's life history and background, their interests and people important to them.

There was a team of senior leaders who provided oversight of the home. One member of staff told us, “There is an allocation for each shift, there is always a person in charge.”

Regular audits were completed to identify any issues within the home that needed resolving. There were systems in place to record accidents and incidents and care changed as a result to prevent recurrence.

Staff told us they liked working at the home, were treated fairly and were supported in their role. One member of staff told us, “[I like] the teamwork; the staff have really good [sic] co-operation together. If there is a problem everyone cooperates to solve it.”

The registered manager had sought feedback from people, their relatives, staff and professionals and this was acted upon. A relative told us, “When I have raised minor concerns, they were handled straightway." A member of staff told us, “We have an open-door policy with the manager.” Another told us, “The manager listens to us.”

  1. Safe

    Good

    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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

  2. 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

  3. 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained a good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved as partners in their care.

  4. 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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

  5. Well-led

    Good

    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 as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

Questions to ask when you visit

  1. Ask to see the most recent Care Quality Commission (CQC) report and what the home did about any points in it.
  2. Visit at different times of day, including a mealtime.

Registration details

Registered manager
Supinderjeet Brar
Registered with the CQC since
What it provides
Care home service without nursing
Who it supports
Older People

Inspection report

Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

1 inspection report, latest 28 February 2018. Latest assessment published 21 August 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

Ownership type
Organisation
Companies House number
08444760 (opens Companies House)

Cedar House Care Home Limited runs 4 services in England, 2 of them in the South East. 3 are rated Good or Outstanding and 1 has no rating yet.

Other services run by Cedar House Care Home Limited

  1. G
    Cedar House Care Home Good. Care home, Leicestershire, East Midlands
  2. G
    Rosemary Lodge Good. Care home, Staffordshire, West Midlands
  3. –
    Nicholas Winton House Not yet rated. Care home, Buckinghamshire

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.

Checked on the council's website, November 2026.

Common questions

Does Meadowbank Residential Care Home provide nursing care?
No. The Care Quality Commission lists Meadowbank Residential Care Home as a care home without nursing.
How many beds does Meadowbank Residential Care Home have?
The Care Quality Commission's register lists 22 beds at Meadowbank Residential Care Home.
When was Meadowbank Residential Care Home last inspected?
The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Meadowbank Residential Care Home was published on 21 August 2026.
Who runs Meadowbank Residential Care Home?
Meadowbank Residential Care Home is run by Cedar House Care Home Limited. It runs 4 services in England, 2 of them in the South East.
What is Meadowbank Residential Care Home's CQC rating?
Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Good, published on 21 August 2026.

Contact

Phone
01628 781186
Address
44 Braywick Road, Maidenhead, SL6 1DA Map (opens Google Maps)
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)

Compare nearby

  1. G
    Larchfield House Good, 0.5 miles away
  2. G
    Normanhurst Residential Home Good, 0.6 miles away
  3. RI
    Herewards House Requires improvement, 1 mile away
  4. O
    Bramerton Outstanding, 1.2 miles away
  5. –
    Clara Court Not yet rated, 1.2 miles away

See all care homes in Windsor and Maidenhead

See all care homes in Maidenhead