CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Windsor Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Windsor Court Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 March 2021. Inspectors checked how the home was preventing and controlling infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing, cleaning and possible outbreaks safely. The home also had arrangements to reduce social isolation if someone needed to isolate.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives no overall quality rating and does not rate the other four key questions.
Visitor safety
Visitors had rapid COVID-19 testing, health questions and temperature checks. They were also asked to wash their hands or use hand gel and wear PPE.
“There was a clear process in place to welcome visitors to the home, this included rapid result COVID-19 testing, health questions and temperature checks.” from the report
PPE and hand hygiene
The home had designated places for putting on and removing PPE. Managers also checked staff hand-washing techniques.
“The registered manager and deputy manager carried out hand washing audits for staff to ensure correct techniques were used.” from the report
Safer shared spaces
Lounges and dining rooms were rearranged to support social distancing. The home also had a dedicated visitor room with its own entrance and hand-washing facilities.
“The communal areas within the home such as lounges and dining rooms had been changed to encourage social distancing.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans for managing outbreaks and for using staff teams safely if someone needed to isolate. It also planned one-to-one activities to help prevent social isolation.
“The home had plans in place for managing outbreaks and had considered how they used staff teams safely in the event that someone needed to isolate.” from the report
Testing and cleaning
The home was taking part in COVID-19 testing and vaccination programmes. Regular cleaning included frequently touched areas, and staff had infection prevention training.
“Infection prevention was supported by regular cleaning of the home including those areas frequently touched such as door handles and light switches.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are the visitor testing, health checks and PPE arrangements described in the report still in place?
- 02How does the home currently manage a suspected or confirmed infection outbreak?
- 03How does the home support residents to avoid social isolation if they need to isolate?
- 04How often are staff trained and checked on hand washing and putting on and removing PPE?
- 05Can you provide the home's current ratings and any inspection reports published since this visit?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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, December 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety needed improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 25 and 26 November 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. People said they felt safe and happy, and inspectors found good care, support and management. However, safety was still rated Requires Improvement because some risks and medicine guidance needed further work.
The overall rating was Good. This means the service was judged good across most areas, but the safety rating shows that some improvements were still needed and had to become consistent.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and supported to make choices.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans had improved and were relevant to each person. They included clear outcomes and guidance for staff.
“Improvements had been made and plans were personalised and relevant to the person.” from the report
Good healthcare support
People had access to doctors, nurses, dieticians and dentists when needed. Instructions from health professionals were recorded and shared with staff.
“People were supported to receive health care services when they needed them.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had strengthened its audits and used them to monitor care and make improvements. Learning was shared through meetings and handovers.
“Improvements had been made to quality assurance systems and these were in place to monitor the standard of care provided.” from the report
Medicine guidance was not individual enough
needs fixingGuidance for medicines taken occasionally did not describe each person's signs and symptoms clearly enough. Some cream labels had also become faint and difficult to read.
“Although the guidance gave maximum dosage and indicators for staff to look out for they were not specific to the person.” from the report
Clinical waste problem
needs fixingThe clinical waste bin was unsecured and overflowing because a collection had been missed. The manager arranged collection during the inspection and planned to change supplier.
“However, we saw that the homes clinical waste bin was not secured and was overflowing.” from the report
Legionella risk being managed
needs fixingThe home had identified a legionella risk in a non-occupied area. It was working with environmental health and an external water specialist to reduce the risk.
“These indicated there was a risk present from legionella in the non-occupied area of the home.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to make occasional-medicine guidance specific to each person?
- 02How do you check that cream labels remain clear and that staff can read the application instructions?
- 03What was the outcome of the work with environmental health and the water specialist on the legionella risk?
- 04How do you make sure clinical waste collections are reliable and that bins cannot overflow?
- 05How have you checked that all staff files now contain a full employment history?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions, including the care home premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 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 Windsor Court Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 May 2017.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.