You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

The inspection took place on 30 May 2017 and was unannounced.

Windsor House is a care home that has been converted from a large detached house in Standish, Wigan. The service provides care for up to 16 people. There are five double and six single bedrooms. Toilets and bathrooms are in close proximity to the bedrooms and communal areas. There is a large garden at the rear of the home. There were 12 people living at the home on the day of the inspection.

At the time of the inspection there was an acting manager who was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission. 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.

Staffing levels were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service. There was a robust recruitment system which helped ensure that people were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Safeguarding issues were dealt with appropriately and staff at the service, staff had undertaken training and demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of safeguarding issues.

Health and safety records at the service were complete and up to date. Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and there were safe medicines systems in place.

There was a thorough induction programme and a good programme of training was on-going for all staff. Staff supervisions and appraisals took place regularly.

There was a choice of nutritious food and nutrition and hydration was monitored when required.

The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We observed in communal areas throughout the day and saw that interactions between staff and people who used the service were friendly and respectful.

We saw records of residents meetings which took place on a regular basis and people were involved in their care planning and reviews.

The service tried to ensure that people could remain at the home if they wished to when nearing the end of their lives.

The care files included a range of health and personal information. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes were clearly documented and people told us these were respected.

There were few activities happening at the service, but a new activities coordinator was being sought to address this. Funding had been obtained for new items to help people with social activities and interests.

There was a complaints procedure which people and their relatives were aware of. However there were few formal complaints made. We saw a number of compliments which had been received by the service.

There was an ‘open door’ policy at the home and people told us the management were very approachable.

We saw minutes of staff meetings, which were held on a regular basis. The provider regularly visited the service to check on care provision.

A number of quality audits and checks were carried out by head office to help drive improvement. Regular satisfaction surveys were sent out to relatives, staff and people who used the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

The service was safe.

Staffing levels were sufficient staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service. There was a robust recruitment system which helped ensure that people were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Safeguarding issues were dealt with appropriately and staff at the service, staff had undertaken training and demonstrated a knowledge and understanding of safeguarding issues.

Health and safety records at the service were complete and up to date. Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and there were safe medicines systems in place.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

The service was effective.

There was a thorough induction programme and a good programme of training was on-going for all staff. Staff supervisions and appraisals took place regularly.

There was a choice of nutritious food and nutrition and hydration was monitored when required.

The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Caring

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

The service was caring.

We observed in communal areas throughout the day and saw that interactions between staff and people who used the service were friendly and respectful.

We saw records of residents meetings which took place on a regular basis and people were involved in their care planning and reviews.

The service tried to ensure that people could remain at the home if they wished to when nearing the end of their lives.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

The service was responsive.

The care files included a range of health and personal information. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes were clearly documented and people told us these were respected.

There were few activities happening at the service, but a new activities coordinator was being sought to address this. Funding had been obtained for new items to help people with social activities and interests.

There was a complaints procedure which people and their relatives were aware of. However there were few formal complaints made. We saw a number of compliments which had been received by the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 June 2017

The service was well-led.

There was an ‘open door’ policy at the home and people told us the management were very approachable.

We saw minutes of staff meetings, which were held on a regular basis. The provider regularly visited the service to check on care provision.

A number of quality audits and checks were carried out by head office to help drive improvement. Regular satisfaction surveys were sent out to relatives, staff and people who used the service.