Windward House

Updated 30 August 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type:

Windward House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection:

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We reviewed the previous inspection report and other information we had received about the service. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection:

We spoke with 11 people who used the service and one relative about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with six members of staff including the registered manager and the nominated individual. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. To help us assess and understand how people's care needs were being met we reviewed six people’s care records. We also reviewed records relating to the running of the home. These included staff recruitment and training records, medicine records and records associated with the provider's quality assurance systems. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 30 August 2019

About the service:

Windward House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 42 older people. At the time of our inspection, 41 people were living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they felt safe, supported and were happy living at Windward House. Staff were seen to be kind, caring and treated people with dignity and respect.

Quality assurance and governance systems were in place to assess, monitor, and improve the quality and safety of the services provided. However, we found the systems in place had not been undertaken robustly, therefore had not identified that some records were not complete or up to date. We have recommended the provider undertakes a review of the effectiveness of the systems and processes in place.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; however, we have recommended the registered manager reviews staffs understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding (DoLS), and the records that need to be completed.

People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm. However, we found that some care records did not contain enough information of any action taken to mitigate known risks. Whilst there was no negative impact on people’s safety, we have recommended the provider reviews care records to ensure these are accurate, complete and up to date.

Other risks were well managed. Risks had been identified, in relation to people’s care needs such as mobility and skin care, and action had been taken to minimise these. Accidents and incidents were monitored to look for trends and identify whether changes were needed to reduce risks.

Regular checks were undertaken in relation to the environment and the maintenance and safety of equipment, and fire safety systems were serviced and audited regularly.

People’s medicines were managed, stored and administered safely and appropriately by staff who had been trained and assessed as competent to do so.

People had confidence in the registered manager and told us the home was well managed. There was an open culture where people, relatives and staff were encouraged to provide feedback. Staff felt they received a good level of support and could contribute to the running of the home. We have made a recommendation in relation to how the provider records staff supervision.

People were protected from potential abuse by staff who had received training and were confident in raising concerns. There was a thorough recruitment process in place that checked potential staff were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable.

There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to ensure people’s needs were met. Staff had time to sit and engage people in conversation and to support people’s involvement in social activities.

Windward House was clean, and people were protected from the risk and/or spread of infection as staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE).

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was ‘Good’ (published on the 16 March 2017).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk