Windsor Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse. There was a safeguarding adult’s policy in place to help guide practice. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report any recognised potential abuse. A member of staff told us, “When I see abuse I will report it and the person dealing with it will report it to the CQC, the police and local authority.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, this is usually the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA. DoLS were in place where people lacked mental capacity.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The service was committed to promoting people’s health and wellbeing through personalised interventions. For example, to support a person with weight management, the service arranged for a fitness instructor to visit weekly and run exercise sessions. These sessions encouraged the person to move in different ways and engage in physical activity suited to their needs. We saw the service had completed risk assessments and care plans that provided guidance to staff on how to effectively support people. Staff knew people well; they were able to tell us about associated risks to people and how they managed those risks. Comments included, “I know what the triggers are and try to keep on top of it. I distract them with activities they enjoy.”

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We found the provider did not always have photographic identifications in staff file. However, the registered manager assured us this would be addressed promptly.

Staff recruitment records demonstrated relevant checks were completed before a new member of staff started working at the service. Staff received regular supervisions to discuss their performance and identify any training needs. The manager also held regular staff meetings. From the meeting minutes, we saw staff discussed the general running of the service, lessons learned, policies and processes, as well as the individuals they were supporting.

Observations during our assessment demonstrated the deployment of staff was appropriate and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.