Windsor Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to good governance.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Due to the concerns identified during the assessment, we could not be assured that people consistently received high-quality, compassionate care that upheld their dignity and rights.

We received mixed feedback about the care at the home. Several family members spoke positively, describing the care as “brilliant” and care staff as “amazing.” However, 1 person told us, “The care is reasonable but not good. Some of the carers just don’t care” and another person raised concerns about night staff.

Restrictive practices were used for 2 people without clear documentation or evidence of professional advice. Care plans did not always demonstrate decisions were made people’s best interests which upheld their rights.

Most staff spoke positively about the people they supported. A staff member told us, “Money can't buy what they give you back.” However, we raised concerns about the language used by 1 staff member, which did not reflect the values of dignity and respect expected in the home.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people were treated as individuals and ensure their care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Two people living at the home had a learning disability. Care records did not always demonstrate how the provider was meeting the principles of “Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture,” which is a framework which sets out how providers should deliver care for people with a learning disability and autism. Records did not fully evidence how people’s social needs were met, care planning was not always person-centred, and the environment was not always enabling or in line with this guidance.

Despite these shortfalls, we observed examples of good practice where staff demonstrated awareness of individuality and adapted their approach to meet people’s needs. One staff member told us, “Everyone is different and I treat them differently.” They explained how they used a person’s army rank to address an individual, because they responded well to this. They also highlighted the importance of music to support people’s wellbeing.

An effective system was not fully in place to promote people’s independence, choice and control. People did not always have access to equipment that met their needs. For example, 1 person was cared for in bed; there was no documentation to show this was the least restrictive option or in their best interests. In addition, staff explained that should they want to get up, a suitable chair was not available. Staff also reported insufficient suitable showering facilities, meaning people were taken upstairs to the male suite, if they wanted a shower instead of a bath. Staff explained it would be more dignified and comfortable for people if a shower room was available on the ground floor.

Records did not fully evidence how people’s social needs were met. For example, 1 person’s records documented 4 activities for the month of November 2025, including ‘listening to music,’ ‘eating pureed buffet food,’ ‘reading the newspaper’ and ‘using sensory equipment.’

Despite these shortfalls, we heard, read and observed positive examples of how living at Windsor Court had improved people’s independence and wellbeing.

Following our assessment, the registered manager told us that these issues were being addressed. They also told us a quote had been accepted for the installation of a ground floor shower room.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure staff responded to people’s needs in the moment. Staffing levels, gender and skill mix did not always meet the needs of people living at the home. This meant that staff were not always able to provide proactive support, particularly when people displayed distressed behaviours, or required additional assistance.

Restrictive practices were used in the care of two people without clear documentation or evidence of professional advice, which limited assurance that responses were appropriate.

Despite these shortfalls, we observed positive examples where staff acted quickly to respond to people’s immediate needs. Staff knew people well and adapted their approach to provide reassurance and support.

An effective system was not fully in place to promote the wellbeing of staff.

We received mixed feedback from staff about how well their wellbeing was supported. While some staff felt supported, others told us they did not always feel valued or listened to, and some said they did not always receive support following incidents at work. In addition, female staff told us they sometimes felt unequipped to support males who displayed behaviours that may cause distress or pose a risk.

The registered manager told us she was addressing this by formalising debriefs after incidents, to ensure staff were supported and had opportunities to reflect and learn.