Windsor House

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

We inspected 4 quality statements. People were not supported to have choice and control and make decisions about how their support was provided. Care and support was not provided in a person-centred way. People were not encouraged and supported by staff to do as much as they could for themselves to maintain their independence. People’s immediate needs for care and support were not met. People were not supported to understand their rights and how the service would make sure these were respected. People were not encouraged to take part in a wide range of activities both at the service and in the community.

This service scored 35 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

One person we spoke with told us they were not always shown kindness by staff which resulted in them feeling worried about seeking staff support.

Staff were not always supportive to people and communication was limited at times.

Alongside our inspection, local authority and health partners were providing support to the service for a significant period of time. This was due to concerns they had about the quality of care and people’s safety. Despite visiting daily and providing the extra support, they continued to have concerns about the quality of care and had made the decision that people would be supported to move to new care homes.

We did not observe any unkind care; some staff took time to engage with people. However, we also observed some examples of staff being around people but standing in the room and not engaging with people. For example, during the morning of one of our visits, we saw people sat in chairs around the lounge whilst staff either stood in the doorway watching people or stood just outside the door. There was no engagement with people during these times.

People were not always treated as individuals. This is because people’s care plans were out of date or missing and therefore staff did not have clear guidance. Staff did not have a clear understanding of each person’s individual needs.

Staff and leaders demonstrated they did not have a sufficiently sound knowledge of how to deliver person-centred care, which followed best practice.

Our observations found there was a lack of engagement between staff and people . Staff were task led and were observed standing outside the lounge, on multiple occasions, and not engaging with people or facilitating any planned activity. engagement with people.

There was a lack of systems and oversight to ensure people received care which respected them as individuals. The routines of the care home and poor care planning did not support good practice

People we spoke with were not able to tell us if they were able to exercise independence, choice and control in their daily lives. However, records viewed did not indicate that people were proactively asked about their choices and preferences. One person said they used to go out along the promenade with staff but had not done this for a long time.

taff told us they provided care according to 3 folders. One folder for people who required 1 member of staff to support, 1 folder for people who required 2 staff to support and 1 folder for people who did not need support. These folders did not contain any information as to how people wanted their care and support delivered. When asked how they knew people’s likes and dislikes 1 member of staff was unable to understand the question. Leaders were unable to demonstrate how they monitored the quality-of-care people received and whether people were supported to have independence choice and control in their lives.

Our observations did not demonstrate that people were able to exercise choice and control in their daily lives. Care was task led and not centred on the person.

Staff did not have clear guidance on what was important to people. Where there were care plans, they did not include details on people’s routines, preferences and social needs.

People did not have their immediate needs met. Our observations saw people were left in discomfort. Records of weight loss demonstrated people’s nutritional needs were not met.

Staff and leaders did not always ensure people’s individual needs were being met. During our inspection visit we told staff about a person who required support and found they were still waiting for this over an hour later.

We saw that staff responded to people’s requests. however, their interactions were brief and then the staff member stopped engaging with the person. This brief interaction did not always provide sufficient reassurances, so people sometimes became unsettled again when the staff member left.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.