Windmill Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Care plans provided appropriate guidance to staff to keep people safe. There was a recruitment drive at the time of the assessment to reduce the numbers of agency staff needed. Recruitment processes were safe. Staff received regular training updates.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Managers told us how they ensured staff had access to information about how to raise any concerns. Staff were aware of how to raise any concerns and were confident these would be dealt with. One commented: “The residents are happy and safe, if I thought any different you would be hearing from me.”

There was a safeguarding policy in place, this did not include local contact details. Managers told us they would update the policy accordingly. Staff received training on safeguarding. Safeguarding information was available in the office and staff room. Applications for Deprivation of Liberty authorisations had been made appropriately. When people were able to consent to care they had signed forms to indicate they were in agreement. Some people had Power of Attorney arrangements in place and this was recorded.

People and relatives told us they were confident they/their family members were safe. One relative commented; “Yes, I do consider my relative to be safe. The carers regularly check on them, even when they know I am here. They always pop in to check if there is anything they need.”

We observed staff and residents chatting together and staff supporting people in shared areas. People were clearly relaxed and at ease with staff.

Staff explained how they supported people in order to mitigate any known risks. Systems for recording risk assessments were due to be updated in the near future. Managers told us this would help them capture any changes in people’s needs more effectively.

When people’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into Windmill Court, any risks were identified and risk assessments put in place. These were regularly updated as people’s needs changed. Equipment was available when this was needed and staff used it appropriately and safely. Relatives told us staff were aware of any risks associated with their family members health and supported them accordingly.

Care records contained guidance for staff to enable them to support people safely when they were at risk. Records indicated some people had not been consistently supported in line with the guidance. Charts to record when people at risk of poor skin integrity had received support had not always been completed.

We observed people being supported in line with their needs.

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

People told us they had call bells so they could request support from staff when they needed it. Relatives said there were not always enough staff available who had a good knowledge of people’s needs, particularly at weekends.

The manager had set up a new schedule to ensure all staff had supervisions planned as well as yearly appraisals. Staff told us they had recently had, either a face to face supervision, or an observation of practice. Staff told us they received the training and support they needed to support people in line with their needs. There were some vacancies on the staff team. Staff told us this was sometimes ‘challenging.’ To minimise the impact of this agency staff were used. The manager told us they were inducting more agency staff to increase the numbers available to them to cover any gaps in the rota. Where possible they used agency staff who had worked at the service before. Following the site visit we were told more staff had been recruited to reduce the need for agency staff. Changes to shift patterns were being discussed to try and identify how staffing could be more effectively organised. Recruitment was ongoing and, following the site visit, the manager told us some of the vacancies had been filled.

When agency staff were used they were required to complete an induction prior to starting work to familiarise themselves with the service and people’s needs. Recruitment checks were completed before any new staff started work. Staff confirmed references had been followed up and DBS checks completed. Staff received training to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. Training was monitored by head office who highlighted when any member of staffs training was about to expire or was out of date. The training matrix provided at the inspection visit showed there were five members of staff whose training had expired in three or more areas. The manager told us they were monitoring this and had reminded staff of the need to complete refresher training in a timely manner. Following the assessment site visit we were provided with an updated training matrix to evidence required training had since been completed.

On the day of the assessment there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. We observed staff supporting people to move around the service. They were patient and good humored in their approach.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.