CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Windmill Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection prevention measures, but this was not a full quality inspection.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 January 2021. It checked how well the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infection.
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Furniture supported social distancing, high-touch areas were cleaned regularly, and staff had updated infection control training. They were assured that PPE, testing, admissions, visiting arrangements and outbreak planning were being managed safely.
The overall service and Safe rating were both recorded as “Inspected but not rated”. This means the inspection gave a view of infection prevention and control, not a full judgement on all areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean, with regular cleaning of communal areas and high-touch points. Its layout supported social distancing.
“The home was clean and hygienic in appearance. There were appropriate procedures to ensure that infection control risks were reduced.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors were assured that PPE was available and used safely, and that testing was available for residents and staff.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Outbreak planning
There was a plan for managing a COVID-19 outbreak, including separating parts of the home to help keep people safe.
“The provider had a contingency plan to manage an outbreak of COVID-19 including segregating the home to keep people safe.” from the report
Family contact
During the national lockdown, residents could keep in touch with family through phones, electronic devices and an arranged glass-door system.
“People who used the service were supported to communicate with their friends and family.” from the report
Staff risk assessments
minorFormal COVID-19 risk assessments for each staff member were still being recorded at the time of the inspection. The risks had previously been discussed and agreed informally.
“The registered manager was in the process of recording formal risk assessments for each staff member regarding their level of risk from COVID-19.” from the report
- 01Have formal COVID-19 risk assessments now been completed for every staff member?
- 02How do you manage a COVID-19 outbreak, including separating areas of the home?
- 03How are residents supported to keep in touch with family when visitors cannot enter?
- 04How often are communal areas and high-touch points such as handrails cleaned?
- 05How do you check that staff follow the updated infection control and PPE procedures?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 2021 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, August 2019
Windmill Court was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some records and lunch timings needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 22 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a visitor, staff and managers. They reviewed care and medicines records, accident reports, complaints, staff files and quality checks. They also observed care and contacted health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines systems, good links with health professionals and care that respected people's dignity, choices and individual needs.
There were some areas to improve. Some records about people's weights and nutrition and hydration were unclear or incomplete. Lunch was also served later than the times stated in the home's written information. The manager acted during the inspection, and inspectors found no harm to people from the record-keeping issues.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff knew how to identify and report abuse. The home also had risk assessments and emergency plans in place.
“Because I feel very safe here, I never have to worry and that makes me, and my family feel much better about me being here now” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough care and clinical staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, training, supervision and appraisals were in place.
“There were enough clinical and care staff with the appropriate skills, knowledge and experience to meet people's needs and provide effective care.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and communication needs. Inspectors observed a warm approach that protected people's privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were at ease in the presence of staff, who adopted a warm and caring approach towards their work and spoke to people in a respectful manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs and choices and were updated when needs changed. Activities and one-to-one support were available, including for people spending time in their rooms.
“Staff were responsive to people's needs and requests for assistance.” from the report
Good healthcare links
The home worked with healthcare professionals and followed their advice. Records showed referrals and support for changing health needs.
“The service had built good relationships with other healthcare professions to ensure people received safe consistent care.” from the report
Some records were unclear
needs fixingInformation about people's weights was sometimes recorded in different places and did not always match. Some nutrition and hydration records were not totalled each day, so they did not give a clear overall picture.
“Some nutrition and hydration records were not totalled daily and therefore did not provide a meaningful oversight.” from the report
Lunch could be late
minorThe home's written information said lunch would be served between 12.00 and 13.00, but some people were still eating lunch at 13.30 during the inspection. The manager said this was being worked on.
“Observations on the day showed some people were still eating their lunch at 13.30hrs.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure people's weights are recorded consistently and accurately?
- 02How are nutrition and hydration records checked and totalled each day?
- 03What changes have you made to prevent lunch being served later than the times given in your written information?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs, communication or abilities change?
- 05How do you provide activities and meaningful contact for people who spend much of their time in their room or in bed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home's premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 August 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.
Every inspection of Windmill Court
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.