Windmill Manor

Updated 31 March 2026

Date of assessment: 14 and 16 April 2026

Windmill Manor is a nursing home providing support to younger and older people, people living with dementia and people living with a physical disability. There were 46 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

The inspection was prompted by notification of an incident following which a person using the service died in 2025. This incident is subject to further investigation by CQC as to whether any regulatory action should be taken. As a result, this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident. However, the information shared with CQC about the incident indicated potential concerns about the management of the risk of people’s skin integrity. This inspection examined those risks. We also received information that related concerns related to safe care and treatment and staffing levels. Since the last assessment, a new registered manager had started at the service.

We have identified breaches in relation to the lack of adherence to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, safe care and treatment, the management of medicines and infection control. Breaches also related to people not being protected from the risk of abuse, staffing levels were not safe and staff were not appropriately trained and supervised, and there was a lack of robust governance and oversight.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward. This service has been placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care makesignificant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use ourenforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a time frame within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
 

Updated 31 March 2026

People’s feedback on their experiences of care varied across the home. Some told us they felt unsupported, including those who were cared for in their rooms. Several people and relatives said they did not always feel [people were] safe or listened to. Observations confirmed people often waited extended periods for assistance and or staff were not available when potential safeguarding incidents may have occurred.

People’s overall experiences were affected by staffing levels including [but was not limited to] how frequently people were supported with meals, drinks and re-positioning them to reduce the risk of skin damage.

People’s consent was not always being obtained before restrictions were being placed on them. People’s medicines were not always being managed in a safe way. There was a mixed response relating to how the home was managed.

However, there were people that felt they received safe care and that staff levels were sufficient. There were also relatives that fed back people were well looked after and that there were enough staff to support their loved ones.