CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Windermere
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff knew how to protect them from abuse. Inspectors found risk assessments, safe staffing, recruitment checks and safe arrangements for medicines and the environment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices and goals were assessed and recorded. Staff received training and supervision, and supported people with meals, healthcare, consent and developing independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as caring and compassionate. People were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and encouraged to manage parts of their lives independently.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's preferences and regularly reviewed. Staff supported people with community activities, education, work, relationships and life skills.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems to monitor quality and safety, and people, relatives and staff were asked for feedback. This rating improved from Requires improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Windermere is rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with well-led care improved from Requires improvement.
This was a planned inspection on 24 June 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records. They observed care, spoke with the manager and a senior care worker, and later spoke with a relative.
The home supports up to three people and three people were living there at the time. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff understood their needs, and care was kind and respectful. People were supported to make choices, develop life skills and take part in activities, education and work in the community.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection in October 2016. The Well-led rating improved from Requires improvement to Good.
People felt safe
People and relatives had confidence in the care and staff. Risk assessments, safety checks and safeguarding arrangements were in place.
“People felt safe living at the service and had confidence in the staff who took care of them.” from the report
Skilled and supportive staff
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisal. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs and preferences.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled and felt supported by managers to develop further.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make decisions and express their views.
“Staff are lovely and make me feel comfortable, helpful and give good advice, don't think there's room for improvement.” from the report
Building independence
The home helped people develop practical skills and take part in work, education, social activities and community life.
“People were encouraged to make choices and have as much independence as possible, to prepare them for a life outside of the service.” from the report
Improved leadership
The Well-led rating improved to Good. Inspectors found regular audits, meetings and feedback systems supporting improvement.
“At this inspection this key question has now improved to good.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess my relative's needs, choices and goals before they move in?
- 02How will you support my relative to develop independence and life skills?
- 03Which staff will usually support my relative, and how will you maintain consistency if staff are absent?
- 04How will you support my relative with medicines, healthcare appointments and any dietary needs?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and the care provided; all five ratings were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and responsive support, but the home needed improvement in management arrangements.
Inspectors visited on 7 September 2016 and spoke with one person, the acting manager and the provider. They also reviewed care records, staff files, training records and records about safety and management.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive support. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicines checks, personalised care plans and respectful support. People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to stay active and independent.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led because there was no registered manager. The previous registered manager had left six months earlier, although the provider had tried to recruit someone and the acting manager was receiving support.
People felt safe
The home had risk assessments, environmental checks and safeguarding arrangements. Staffing levels were judged sufficient to keep people safe.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people and keep them safe.” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect. The home recorded information about religion, sexual orientation, language and other personal preferences.
“We found staff had a caring and respectful manner when they engaged with people and their relatives.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to access college, work, volunteering, activities and the local community. Staff aimed to help people regain control over their lives.
“Our aim is to always move people on through promotion of their independence.” from the report
Safety and quality checks
The manager carried out checks on care files, medicines, the building, fire safety, staff files and training. Inspectors saw evidence that identified issues were acted on.
“We found the manager had a range of audits in place to check the quality of the service and people's safety.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe previous registered manager had left six months before the inspection. The provider had tried to recruit a replacement, but the home did not yet have one.
“However, there was no registered manager in place.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now been appointed, and if not, who is responsible for the home?
- 02How is the acting manager supported by senior management?
- 03How often are care plans, medicines, staff files and safety checks audited now?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing their care and giving feedback?
- 05How will the home support my relative's independence, activities, education, work or community links?
This was a full inspection covering all five areas of quality, with checks of care, staffing, training, medicines, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 November 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Windermere
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 August 2013.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.