• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Windermere Road Nursing Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

62-66 Windermere Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL51 3PH (01242) 242684

Provided and run by:
The Brandon Trust

All Inspections

28 and 29 April 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 28 and 29 April 2015 and was unannounced. Windermere Road Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation, nursing care and personal care for up to 12 adults with a learning disability, physical disability and/or complex health issues. Care is provided in three bungalows that are all linked to a shared kitchen, office and medicines room.

11 people were living at the home when we visited and most people needed help with all aspects of nutrition, personal care and moving about. People also needed staff to help them if they became confused or anxious. Staff support was provided at the home at all times and people required the support of one or more staff when away from the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. People had decisions made on their behalf that were not fully documented to make sure their changing needs and circumstances were addressed. Some people did not receive their medicines as prescribed as a result of administration errors. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Whilst most staff supported people in a thoughtful and caring manner, we observed some instances when staff did not communicate effectively or did not fully consider the situation from the perspective of the person being supported. Most permanent staff knew people well and understood their needs. Some bank or agency staff lacked this detailed knowledge to help them support people in line with their needs and preferences. The registered manager was working to recruit a full staff team to reduce the reliance on bank and agency staff.

Some people had complex physical needs and healthcare professionals said staff followed their guidance but some felt this was not always sustained. Concerns were raised about staff not always following eating and drinking plans and postural guidance precisely.

Staff supported people to take part in activities they knew matched the person’s individual preferences and interests. Most of the time people were encouraged to make choices and to do things for themselves as far as possible. In order to achieve this, a balance was struck between keeping people safe and supporting them to take risks and develop their independence.

Staff felt well supported and had the training they needed to provide support to each person. Staff met with their line manager to discuss their development needs and action was taken when concerns were raised. Learning took place following any incidents to prevent them happening again. Staff understood what they needed to do if they had concerns about the way a person was being treated. Staff were prepared to challenge and address poor care to keep people safe and happy.

10 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We were not able to talk to people who used the service during this inspection because of their complex communication needs. We did talk to staff and the relatives of one person who used the service. We looked at the care files for three people who used the service. We saw that each person had their own individual care plan 'Planning for life document'. We saw that care plans were kept up to date and were reviewed regularly. Associated risk assessments were also in place and had been reviewed in line with each care plan.

The provider had systems in place to make sure people who used the service were kept safe from the possibility of abuse. The manager confirmed that no complaints had been made about the home because the staff try to resolve any concerns as they arise.

We spoke to a relative of one person who used the service. They told us 'we are pleased with the care our daughter receives, she gets good care and the staff take time to look after us as well'. We also looked at feedback from satisfaction surveys that had been completed by relatives and professionals who visited the home. The comments from these surveys included 'thank you for keeping our daughter happy" (relative).

29 May and 6 June 2012

During a routine inspection

We used a number of methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service because they had complex needs, which means they were unable to tell us themselves.

However, we had positive feed back from a relative and healthcare professionals during our visit. The comments recorded from six professionals and five families were overall positive and described the care as 'very good', 'excellent' and said that staff were always respectful with a 'consistent holistic approach'.