Windsor Lodge Care Home

Updated 16 December 2020

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC's response to care homes with outbreaks or concerns raised about coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place. This inspection took place on 11 November 2020 and was unannounced.

Updated 16 December 2020

This unannounced inspection took place on the 23, 24 and 25 October 2017. The service had previously been inspected in October 2014 and was found to be compliant with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

Windsor Lodge Care Home is a family run care home registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 9 older people. At the time of our inspection eight older people were living there.

The home had previously been the proprietor’s family home which had been converted into a care home. The home has an extremely attractive and well maintained garden with fountains and ponds. Visitors had to pass through an electronic security gate before they are able to access the property. This added to people’s sense of security.

The home has a registered manager in place. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found the service was safe because systems were in place and staff had received training in how to identify and report concerns of abuse. Employment practices meant the risk of employing inappropriate staff had been reduced. Records demonstrated medicines were administered by trained staff, and in line with the prescribed dosage and time. The medicines were stored securely and stocks tallied with recorded amounts. Risks related to the care being provided in the home, the environment and equipment had been assessed. Risks were minimised where possible to ensure people, staff and visitors were kept safe.

Sufficient numbers of trained and experienced staff were available at all times. This offered a consistency in the care provided. Staff had received additional training and were able to lead on specific areas of care such as diabetes, infection control and end of life care. This meant all staff were kept up to date on best practice in these areas.

Staff were supported through regular contact with the registered manager, induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Training was completed in the areas deemed as mandatory by the registered manager, these included moving and handling, nutrition and health and safety amongst others.

People’s mental capacity had been taken into consideration. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were being met. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and individual needs. This information was shared with the cooks who prepared meals people enjoyed. Variations were made to the menu to ensure everyone’s preference was met.

From our observations and feedback from people living in the home we could see staff were extremely caring, considerate and gentle in their approach to people. Interactions between staff and people were very positive and reassuring. Communication flowed easily and familiarity was evident. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained and staff went the extra mile to support people in areas of people’s lives that were important to them. The quality of care we observed in the home was outstanding, this was because everyone was treated equally, their care was focussed on them as individuals and staff provided care in a meaningful way.

People’s dignity and privacy were protected and their independence was promoted. Staff knew people well and knew about their life histories. People were encouraged to maintain hobbies and interests as well as develop new skills. Initiatives had been introduced to empower people to be able to share their views, participate in learning in how to self-care, and improve their communication with the provider. Community participation was actively promoted and links with the local community had proved beneficial through intergenerational activities such as poetry and art, music and discussions. People benefited through socialisation, reminiscence and in the making of new relationships and friendships with young people. People’s end of life wishes were respected and staff worked hard to ensure people’s afterlife care was dignified and in line with their wishes. We were told of a situation that demonstrated how staff had gone over and above their designated responsibilities to ensure a person’s end of life wishes were met with love and care.

The registered manager’s positivity about the care being provided in the home was evident throughout the inspection. They were a strong role model for staff with a naturally caring and generous character. Staff and people in the home spoke positively about the registered manager and their ability to care and manage the service. They told us they felt their daily presence and accessibility was both supportive and reassuring. It was evident there was a culture of mutual respect between the registered manager, staff and people living in the home. People enjoyed interacting with staff and vice versa. The atmosphere in the home was very relaxed, comfortable and homely. The registered manager, staff and people living in the home worked together to produce a service that was safe, caring and effective.

Documentation within the home was up to date and reflected the individual needs of people. Care plans reflected people’s cultural, social and health needs and guidance for staff was clearly documented. Where people experienced anxiety or confusion staff were trained to support them in a kind and supportive way.

People knew how to make a complaint but had not had to do so, as they felt issues were addressed immediately when raised with staff or the registered manager.

Quality assurance was taken seriously and audits and checks had been completed to improve the service to people. Results from the audits were shared with people and staff to inform them of the findings and to gain support for any improvements. People were actively encouraged to participate in their care and to share their knowledge and experiences to improve the quality of care in the home. Information regarding people’s health was shared with them and their GP every six months to ensure they received the help necessary to stay well.

The vision of the home was to provide “High quality, personalised care.” Staff understood the vision and where their responsibilities lay in trying to achieve this. People told us they were very happy with their care and that it was personalised to their needs. We found the care to be outstanding in some areas due to the high level of compassion, care and respect staff had for the people living in the home.