You are here

Windsor Court Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 October 2018

This inspection took place on 18 September 2018 and was unannounced, which meant the staff and registered provider did not know we would be visiting.

Windsor Court is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were look at during the inspection. The service is registered for 32 people and at the time of inspection there were 28 people living at the service.

Following our last inspection the service had appointed a new registered manager and they have been registered with the Care Quality Commission since May 2018. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

The last inspection of the service was carried out in December 2017 and found that the service was not meeting all the requirements of Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations. We found concerns relating to risks to people arising from their health and support needs not always being completed or robustly reviewed. Medicines were not always managed safely and people’s dining experience did not meet the expected standards, their needs or promote people’s wellbeing.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions to at least good.

At this inspection we found that the provider had worked to drive improvements within the service. Audits were now taking place with a full action plan along with any lessons learnt. Medicines were being managed more safely. Risk assessments relating to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service were completed and regularly reviewed.

We found that people’s dining experience had improved with the cook presenting food that was much more appetising for people who required pureed diets. Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) referrals were being actively made.

People were happy and told us they felt safe. The staff had a good understanding of safeguarding, what their responsibilities were and could clearly tell us what action they would take if they had any concerns about the way people were supported. Staff received safeguarding training and had access to information about the different types of abuse, how to prevent abuse and how to respond to an allegation.

People who used the service and the staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. The management team closely considered people's needs and ensured sufficient staff were on duty each day and night.

Effective recruitment and selection procedures were in place and we saw that appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

People's care needs were assessed, and clear plans were now in place to meet people’s individual needs. People were cared for by staff who knew them very well and understood how to support them.

A training programme was in place that enabled staff to provide the person-centred care and support people needed. New staff completed a service induction programme and undertook the care certificate, this meant that they had the knowledge and skills required to meet people’s needs. Staff also received regular supervision sessions, which assisted the registered manager to identify areas for development.

Staff had a basic understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and had received training. The provider had appropriately requested Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) and ensured that these were regularly reviewed.

We observed that staff had positive relationships with the people who used the se

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 October 2018

The service was safe and the rating for this domain had improved to Good.

Staff have a good awareness and understanding of safeguarding procedures and knew what to do to keep people safe.

There was enough staff on duty to make sure that people were safe.

Recruitment systems were robust and made sure that the right staff were employed to keep people safe.

Medicines were managed safely, stored correctly and disposed of safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 October 2018

The service was effective and the rating for this domain had improved to Good.

Care and support was delivered in a person centred way.

The dining experience had improved, people have choice of food which was well presented.

Referrals were made to relevant professionals and the service acted quickly on their recommendations.

Staff understood the key requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the need for DoLS authorisations.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 October 2018

The service was caring and the rating for this domain had improved to Good.

Staff treated people with dignity, kindness, patience and respect.

People had choice and control over their lives and their religious beliefs and preferences were respected.

Staff had time, information and the support they needed to provide care and support to people in a person centred way.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 October 2018

The service was responsive and the rating for this domain had improved to Good.

Staff demonstrated a person-centred approach to care.

People were supported to access activities.

There were systems in place to manage complaints.

End of life care plans were in place for people who wished to discuss this.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 October 2018

The service was well-led and the rating for this domain had improved to Good.

The service was being well-led by the new manager. Staff and people in the home were positive about the new senior team.

The service had a positive culture that was person centred, open and transparent.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included regular audits, meetings and feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff. Action had been taken, or was planned, where the need for improvement was identified.

The service was in the process of building good links with the local community that reflected the needs and choices of people.