Windmill Care Centre

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.

This service scored 55 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.
We received mixed feedback from relatives. One relative told us, “The majority of the carers are very good but there are a couple who I’m not so sure about. They don’t seem to have the right attitude for the job.” People’s daily notes and care plans included language, which was not always kind, caring and appropriate. For example, one person was known to display repetitive behaviour. Their care plan stated they had a ‘short-term memory’, and staff are to be patient, actively listen and focus on validating [person’s] feelings and emotions. However, we found this person’s records included statements from staff that the person was ‘disturbing’ or ‘frustrating’ staff and other residents and displayed ‘disruptive’ and ‘annoying’ behaviours’. This did not demonstrate staff valued and listened to people and communicated with them in a kind and respectful way, or embedded a culture of kindness, to ensure people were treated with compassion with every interaction.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.
People told us how they were able to participate in activities they liked and wake up according to their individual preference. We reviewed people’s care plans and found they contained information about people’s interests, hobbies and preferred communication methods. However, we found this information was not always presented according to people’s individual needs. Some people’s communication needs were presented generic, rather than according to their individual needs. This meant people’s communication needs were not supported in an individualised way to ensure they engaged in their care, treatment and support to maximise their experience and outcomes.
We also found the provider did not ensure people’s PRN protocols were personalised according to their individual needs and preferences. This did not demonstrate people were supported to manage their health in an individualised way, and were in control of planning their care and support.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
People said they made choices such as when to get up, what they eat and what they do. Staff were able to describe what things people could do for themselves and when they needed support. One person said, “I can do what I want really. I can get up and go to bed when I want. I do my own personal care. I can shower when I want and go to the garden”. Relatives felt the service promoted choice and control. One relative told us, “She does go downstairs to join in with activities – it is her choice”.
Staff told us about how they support people to have independence, choice and control. One staff said, “[the] Home uses plate choice of two dishes which are shown”. Another staff told us ““It’s what individuals need. To treat with respect and with dignity. After all, it’s their home.”
The registered manager told us how the service was exploring local areas and activities which people could utilise and access according to their preferences and enjoyment.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.
We observed some people were unable to use their call bells were calling loudly for help from their bedrooms. In several instances, up to three people were heard shouting for assistance at the same time, without any staff responding. People told us, “I haven’t needed to use a call-bell, I’m not sure if I have one. I’m not aware of anyone checking up on me at night they might do but I’m not sure.”
The provider did not demonstrate how they ensured all people’s needs would be immediately met, whether people were able to use call bells or not.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.
We received mixed feedback from staff. Some staff told us they felt supported by management, however other staff told us, “I don’t see management unless I’m in trouble.” This did not demonstrate all staff felt supported by the management team and always felt supported to deliver care.
The registered manager told us about the various ways in which the provider supported staff wellbeing and encouraged staff to take rest when needed. However, feedback from staff and observations from the site visit indicated these systems and processes were not always effective. For example, some staff told us they did not have enough time to read care plans. This did not ensure people’s needs were always prioritised by ensuring staff had sufficient time to complete necessary tasks. We observed the activities co-ordinator was not always able to complete their role for all people using the service, as they were needed to support individual residents one-to-one during periods of distress.