You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 October 2019

About the service

The Windmill Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 29 people. At the time of the inspection there were 19 people living in the home.

The building has been adapted to include extensions to both floors of the original building. There is an extended lounge area and kitchen and dining facilities on the ground floor. The home has two lifts to the upper floor.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were waiting too long to receive the support they needed to keep them safe due to a lack of available staff. One person told us, “Not much to drink here, only two cups a day if you’re lucky, three sometimes.” Staff were allocated to complete a mid-morning and mid-afternoon drinks trolley but we were told it was frequently missed as staff were not available to do it. Where people were injured or risks to them increased they were not appropriately assessed and managed to ensure people received the support they needed.

We saw staff were safely recruited and people received their medicines on time. The provider had taken steps to address some concerns from the previous inspection but there were still areas which required action.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice. The new extension was clean and spacious but the remainder of the home required urgent attention to bring it up to standard. Those in receipt of specific support with their nutrition and hydration did not always receive it in line with their care plans. However, the quality of the food had much improved and people were much happier with the food they were presented with. Staff told us they were better supported and team meetings and supervisions, which gave them a better understanding for delivering the support people needed.

Staff’s interactions with people were predominantly task focused due to their not being enough of them and the staff we spoke with were clear they wanted to be able to deliver more. There was evidence of people’s involvement in their care plans and people we spoke with told us they were asked what they liked and didn’t like and what they wanted. Resident and relative meetings had begun to take place and people felt more involved with decisions about their care.

The home was without an activity coordinator which meant people had little to do during the days. The staff had taken steps to address risks to keep more vulnerable people safe by applying certain safety steps to all people. E.G. everybody’s food was cut up. A complaints procedure was in place and available to people but complaints were not formally responded to in line with the provider’s complaints procedure. End of life care continued to develop with care plans in place for those who wished to record their views and wishes when the time arrived.

Governance procedures were still being developed and whilst we could see some audits and monitoring had begun to take place they were yet to be used to drive improvement. The provider had begun to ask people if they were happy with the support they received and the feedback had been mostly positive. Staff felt more valued but wanted to work in an established and permanent staff team to allow professional relationships to build and to deliver a better service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection and update - The last rating for this service was inadequate (20 November 2018), where multiple breaches to the regulations were found. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection enough, improvement had not been made and the provider was still in breach of regulations.

This service has been in Special Meas

Inspection areas



Updated 11 October 2019

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 October 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 11 October 2019

The service was not always caring

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 11 October 2019

The service was not responsive

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 11 October 2019

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.