Windsor Court Care Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure person centred care was provided consistently.

Staffing levels, gender and skill mix did not always meet the needs of people living at the home, which meant staff were not always able to provide proactive person-centred support, particularly when people displayed distressed behaviours or required additional assistance.

Care plans were not always person centred or detailed and records did not always evidence how people’s social needs were met.

Despite these shortfalls, we observed examples of good practice where staff demonstrated person centred approaches in their day-to-day interactions with people. Staff gave us examples of how they adapted activities to suit individual preferences. Relatives also told us they felt staff knew their family members well and staff tried to meet their needs wherever possible. One relative said, “I’m really happy with the care in comparison to her previous home.”

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. The home used minimal agency staff, which helped maintain consistency and continuity of care for people. There was regular involvement from GP services and community nurses, who attended the home to support people’s health needs.

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

Care plans documented people’s communication needs which helped support effective understanding and engagement.

While a system was in place for people and relatives to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about people’s care, treatment and support, including meetings, surveys and posters displaying the contact details of the registered manager and senior management, feedback on how promptly and effectively issues were addressed was mixed. A family member told us staff were very responsive and praised an individual staff member for their effectiveness. However, others expressed concerns that issues raised were not always acted upon in a timely manner. In addition, 1 person told us they had raised concerns about night staff, but these concerns were not recorded.

Following our assessment, the registered manager told us she had introduced a process to ensure concerns raised by people were recorded, actioned and reviewed promptly.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Equipment people needed to maintain their health and wellbeing, such as chairs and showering facilities, were not always accessible or fully available as it was a shared resource. There had been delays in the sourcing of some equipment which impacted on people's quality of life.

Despite these shortfalls, we observed positive practice in relation to equity of access to GP services and community nurses.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people experienced equitable care and outcomes.

During the assessment we identified shortfalls relating to the provision of equipment, meeting people’s social needs and supporting people who displayed distressed behaviours. This meant people’s care needs were not being fully met. Barriers in relation to sourcing appropriate equipment had not been overcome in a timely way.

Despite these shortfalls we heard and saw examples of how living at the home had helped improve people’s health and wellbeing. For instance, some relatives told us their family members were more settled and had better access to care than before, and staff described and our own observations confirmed, there had been positive changes in people’s wellbeing since they had moved into the home.

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. One member of staff told us they had previously worked in a hospice and felt that the end-of-life care provided at Windsor Court was just as good. Staff explained they worked closely with the GP and the advanced nurse practitioner to ensure people’s needs could be met at this important time.