Windsor House

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

We inspected 4 quality statements. We found breaches of regulations. People were not supported to understand their equality and human rights and how staff and managers would respect these. Managers did not obtain feedback from people, their relatives or staff to improve care to reduce any barriers people might experience due to their protected characteristics. Care was not provided in a person-centred way and outcomes were not monitored to ensure people received care a positive outcome.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not consistently receive person-centred care. Staff did not have clear guidance on how people liked to be cared for that was up to date and included their preferences of how they wished to be supported.

Leaders and staff demonstrated a lack of insight into how to provide person-centred care. Staff could not provide examples of how they had delivered person centred care. Staff could not tell us how each person had tailored meaningful activities.

We did not observe person-centred care being delivered. The culture in the care home did not focus on meeting people’s individual preferences and needs. For example, people were not involved in planning what type of meals they would like on the menu and people’s feedback was not routinely sought. Staff were task led and there was little opportunity to engage with anything other than the television or radio which were left on all day in communal rooms.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

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

People were not involved in their care planning and information was not always tailored to their needs. There was a lack of up-to-date information about people’s preferences.

Staff were unable to describe how they involved people in decisions about how they received their care.

There were no effective processes in place for people to feedback on their care, for example resident meetings.

People did not always have good experiences and outcomes. Where people’s health had deteriorated this was not always clearly recorded. Staff failed to take action in response to a people who had experienced a fall. Visiting healthcare professionals shared concerns with us about people’s safety and a lack of appropriate response.

Leaders and staff were not alert to discrimination and inequity, and did not take sufficient action to ensure people were protected from abuse. Care plans and risk assessments had not been created, which meant people did not receive equity in their outcomes.

Records showed that a person had fallen from their bed and was found by night staff at 10.30pm. The person had sustained a head injury. This person was taking blood thinners. Medical advice is that people on this type of medication who suffer a head injury should receive medical attention straight away. No medical advice was sought for this person for 14 hours. They did not receive the care and support when they needed it to ensure their health and welfare. People’s individual needs were not recorded in their care plans and 3 people did not have a care plan. This impacted their experience and outcomes. Staff had not received training on people’s health conditions such as diabetes. This meant people were at risk of not receiving good quality care.

Care plans and risk assessments had not been created for all, which meant people did not receive equity in their outcomes. Before and during our inspection, partners continued to have serious concerns about the safety of people and the standards of care provided. People were not being supported to access healthcare services they needed to keep them safe. For example, despite experiencing a lot of weight loss there had been no referrals to healthcare services until prompted by the local authority.

Staff that we spoke to could not evidence how they tailored peoples care, support and treatment. Some residents who had been at the location for several months still did not have recorded care plans.

Effective records were not kept to support the monitoring of outcomes.

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