CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Windsor Court Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with some mental capacity reviews needing updating.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 2 and 4 March 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led because concerns had been raised about safeguarding, nutrition and management. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, checked care plans and medicine records, observed care and infection control, and reviewed other records.
The inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed safely. People had access to healthcare, suitable food and drinks, staff training and support, and were involved in everyday choices.
The home was described as warm and welcoming. Inspectors found positive interactions, systems for checking quality and evidence that managers were working to improve the service. Some mental capacity assessments had not been reviewed recently, but managers agreed to address this.
The overall rating was Good, and Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not examined in this focused inspection, so their previous ratings were carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
Safe care
Risks were assessed and managed, and staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns. Inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment checks.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Medicines were administered by trained staff. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, PPE, testing and visiting arrangements were in place.
“There were safe medicines administration systems in place and people received their medicines when required.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People could choose meals and where to eat. Specialist diets were available, and people had access to healthcare professionals.
“People were provided with a choice of food and drinks.” from the report
Warm atmosphere
People and relatives described the home as welcoming. Inspectors observed respectful interactions and people said they felt listened to and safe.
“The atmosphere in the home was warm and welcoming.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Managers used quality assurance processes to identify improvements. Complaints and concerns were investigated and answered in a timely way.
“There were quality assurance processes in place which were monitored by the regional manager and the interim manager to identify and drive improvement.” from the report
Mental capacity reviews
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments had not been reviewed recently. Managers agreed these would be reviewed as part of their action plan.
“Some mental capacity assessments had not been reviewed recently to ensure they remained current.” from the report
Registered manager absent
minorThe registered manager was not present during the inspection. The regional and interim managers were providing leadership at that time.
“The registered manager was not present during our inspection.” from the report
- 01How are mental capacity assessments kept up to date, and when will any overdue reviews be completed?
- 02Who is currently responsible for the home while the registered manager is absent?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient for each person's needs?
- 04How are people's food preferences, allergies and specialist dietary needs reviewed?
- 05What improvements have been made since the concerns about safeguarding, nutrition and management prompted this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the overall rating used previous ratings for questions not examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2022 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; the previous Good rating remains, and inspectors found safeguarding and infection-control arrangements in place.
This was a targeted inspection on 17 March 2021. It followed concerns about infection control and safeguarding. Inspectors spoke with eight staff, observed the use of protective equipment and checked safeguarding, infection-control and management records.
Inspectors found systems to protect people from harm or abuse. Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns, and safeguarding alerts were raised with the appropriate agencies in good time.
The home had arrangements to reduce the spread of infection. Staff were trained to use protective equipment, and inspectors were assured about visiting arrangements, testing, admissions, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
This visit was not a full inspection and did not give new ratings. The previous overall rating of Good, published in January 2019, remains unchanged. Inspectors will assess all five areas at the next comprehensive inspection.
Safeguarding systems
The home had systems to protect people from harm or abuse. Staff knew how to report concerns, and alerts were raised promptly.
“Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm or abuse.” from the report
Staff understanding
Staff understood how to recognise possible abuse and what action to take. They felt confident that concerns would be dealt with.
“Staff had the knowledge and confidence to report safeguarding concerns to keep people safe.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment, testing, visiting arrangements, social distancing and outbreak arrangements were being managed safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Further infection-control development
minorInspectors signposted the home to resources to develop its infection-prevention approach. This is a minor point from a targeted inspection, rather than a reported breach.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection-control resources did inspectors signpost, and what changes have you made in response?
- 02How do you check that staff continue to use protective equipment correctly?
- 03How are safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents recorded and reviewed for patterns?
- 04How do you manage visits and testing when there is an infection risk or outbreak?
- 05When will the next comprehensive inspection assess the areas that were not reviewed at this visit?
This was a targeted inspection of safeguarding and infection prevention and control only; the other areas were not inspected and the previous ratings carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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.
Every inspection of Windsor Court Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 February 2016.
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
30 live-in carers within about an hour of North Tyneside
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 £950 to £1,130 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.