Windmill House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received personalised care tailored to their individual wishes and preferences. People and their relatives were involved in the designing of their care and support plans, and we found staff to be clear about how to ensure the care provided was in line with people’s individual wishes. People’s relatives confirmed they were able to discuss people’s care and support plans as part of the monthly review process, as well as linking in with people’s allocated key workers as required.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked collaboratively with external health and social care professionals to achieve positive care outcomes. We received positive feedback from the GP and pharmacist regarding the ongoing communication and collaborative working between them and the service, to ensure professional guidance was implemented into the care provided, and risks were appropriately escalated. The GP told us they felt staff recognised where people required emergency medical intervention, due to being familiar with people’s individual needs, abilities and any changes in their presentation.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We found relevant service information was displayed throughout the communal areas of the service to make it accessible for people and their visitors. Information was presented to people to assist with decision making, for example through the use of pictorial menus, and show plates so people could see what was for lunch and assist them to choose. People told us they felt well informed, and “Kept up to date,” with events happening within the service. We were shown examples of newsletters used within the home, to keep people and relatives updated on events and when new people moved into the service.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People, relatives and staff all had access to regular meetings to ensure they were kept informed of events within the service and offered the opportunity to give feedback and make suggestions. Governance records demonstrated value was placed on the feedback received, and timely action taken in response. We received feedback to confirm overall, standards of communication had greatly improved within the service, a relative told us, “The staff communicate brilliantly.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff and leaders worked with people as well as advocating on their behalf when required to ensure they had equal access to external services and resources. Staff proactively sourced support from health and social care professionals to ensure people had access to required services such as specialist equipment, regular medication reviews, foot and nail care to ensure their overall health, comfort and wellbeing needs were met.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Leaders had implemented the key working scheme within the service, to ensure people’s lived care experiences, along with their care records were regularly reviewed, and feedback sourced. Staff and leaders were proactive in response to feedback, and worked collaboratively with people, relatives and external healthcare professionals to achieve positive care outcomes. A relative told us that in response to discussions in relative meetings about a lack of activities at weekends, changes to the activity programme had been made, and events were now happening at weekends. Relatives understandably appreciated the action taken in response to their feedback.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People and their relatives were actively involved in contributing to the planning of their end-of-life care. Care records contained detailed information around people’s wishes and preferences. Where required, GP involvement in the timely provision of anticipatory medication to aid pain management was in place. Aftercare was given to people’s relatives, following the death of a loved one, this was witnessed as part of the inspection process, and feedback we received. Staff and leaders took great pride in ensuring people received dignified, comfortable care in familiar surroundings at the end of their life.