Windermere House

We assessed all the quality statements in safe and there was evidence of good practice. People were enabled to take positive risks and were involved with managing their care and support. People told us they felt safe and were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff demonstrated an understanding of how and who to report concerns to. People were supported by enough skilled and trained staff; some had worked at the service for a long time and knew them well.

We assessed one quality statement in the caring key question and there was evidence of good practice. The scores from this area have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection which was good. People were enabled to make day to day decisions and remained in control of their care and support. Staff respected people and ensured they could choose how and where they wished to spend their time. Visitors were welcomed to the service at a time to suit their loved one. People had access to equipment to enable them to be as independent as possible.

We assessed one quality statement in the responsive key question and there was evidence of good practice. The scores from this area have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection which was good. People were supported to overcome barriers to health and social care. Staff and management advocated for people who were at risk of inequalities in care. Provisions were made to ensure people had access to care and support services and access to the community to lead a full life. Where people’s communication or cognition could potentially form a barrier to care and support, staff worked with people to understand them and ensure they had access to services. People and relatives were able to give feedback through meetings and informal discussions.

The overall rating for this key question is good, however, there had been an issue with the previous managements understanding of their regulatory responsibilities which had now been rectified. During the assessment the newly appointed manager was open and transparent about safeguarding investigations and outcomes. Most quality assurance systems highlighted areas of improvement. Shortfalls were identified, addressed and monitored. Staff championed areas of the service and monitored and provided advice to their colleagues, any areas of concerns were fed-back to the manager. Managers and staff created a culture to support the delivery of high-quality care. Staff told us they felt supported by the management team. There was a capable and compassionate management team who promoted an open culture to deliver good quality care for people in partnership with external professionals. People and external health and social care professionals told us they felt the service was managed well. The provider sought views of people, their relatives and staff who provided feedback about the service through online reviews, quality survey questionnaires and meetings. Feedback was listened to and addressed. Staff were enabled to speak up; the management team provided advice and reassurance. If staff felt unable to speak up within the service, they had access to a whistle-blowing line. Staff equality and diversity was respected.