You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 30 November 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 30 November 2016 and was unannounced.

The Willows provides personal care and accommodation for up to 30 older people and people living with dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 28 people using the service.

The Willows is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of our inspection a registered manager was in place.

During our previous inspection on 15 July 2015, we identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was in relation to care not always being provided or delivered to meet people’s needs and the provider had not notified us of safeguarding incidents.

During this inspection we checked to see whether improvements had been made. We found improvements had been made and this breaches in regulation had been met. People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs. The provider had notified us appropriately of any safeguarding incidents as required. .

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from avoidable harm. Staff had received adult safeguarding training and had available the provider’s safeguarding policy and procedure.

Risks to people's individual needs and the environment had not always been assessed. Concerns were identified with risks associated to a fish pond close to a door exist. The registered manager took immediate action and completed a risk assessment. Risks associated to people’s healthcare needs had not always been appropriately assessed and recorded. However, staff were aware of how to manage these risks; the issue was that of recording. The registered manager completed appropriate care plan documentation and risks assessments and forwarded these to us after the inspection.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and falls were analysed to review themes and patterns. External healthcare professionals were contacted to provide further assessment and support when concerns were identified.

Safe recruitment practices meant as far as possible only suitable staff were employed. The provider was recruiting additional staff but the deployment of staff was not consistent. The provider took immediate action and reviewed how staff were deployed. Appropriate adjustments were made to ensure people received the level of support they required to keep them safe at all times.

People received their medicines safely but some improvements were required to ensure the management of medicines followed good practice guidelines. The temperature of the medicines fridge was taken daily but not the medicines room. People’s records did not include information about how they liked to take their medicines. Protocols were not in place for medicines prescribed to be taken as and when required. The systems in place to audit that medicines were administered and managed safely were infrequent. The registered manager took immediate action to make improvements and after the inspection forwarded us information to confirm what action they had taken.

Staff received an appropriate induction, training and appropriate support.

The manager applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), so that people's rights were protected. Where people lacked mental capacity to consent to specific decisions about their care and support, appropriate assessments had been completed but improvements were required to ensure best interest decisions were made in line with this legislation. Where there were concerns about restrictions on people’s freedom and liberty, the manager had appropriately applied to the supervisory body for further assessment.

People received sufficient to eat and drink and their nutritional needs had been assessed and planned for. The menu showed that alternatives were available to the main meal option if required. People’s independence was promoted as fully as possible.

People's healthcare needs had been assessed and were regularly monitored. The provider worked with healthcare professionals to ensure they provided an effective and responsive service. External healthcare professionals were positive about how the service met people’s individual needs.

Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards the people they supported. They had a clear understanding of people's individual needs, routines and what was important to them.

The provider enabled people who used the service and their relatives or representatives to share their experience about the service provided.

People were involved as fully as possible in their care and support. The provider’s complaint policy and procedure and information about independent advocacy information was not on display for people. However, the registered manager took immediate action and forwarded us this information after our inspection to confirm this had been displayed for people.

People received limited opportunities to participate in activities, interests and hobbies of their choice. Staff provided activities daily when they could.

The provider had checks in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service. These included daily, weekly and monthly audits. Whilst the provider visited the service weekly, their checks on quality and safety and how they ensured the service was continually improving were informal. The provider assured us that they would develop formal systems and processes.

Inspection carried out on 15 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 30 November 2016 and was unannounced.

The Willows provides personal care and accommodation for up to 30 older people and people living with dementia. On the day of our inspection there were 28 people using the service.

The Willows is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of our inspection a registered manager was in place.

During our previous inspection on 15 July 2015, we identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was in relation to care not always being provided or delivered to meet people’s needs and the provider had not notified us of safeguarding incidents.

During this inspection we checked to see whether improvements had been made. We found improvements had been made and this breaches in regulation had been met. People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs. The provider had notified us appropriately of any safeguarding incidents as required. .

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from avoidable harm. Staff had received adult safeguarding training and had available the provider’s safeguarding policy and procedure.

Risks to people's individual needs and the environment had not always been assessed. Concerns were identified with risks associated to a fish pond close to a door exist. The registered manager took immediate action and completed a risk assessment. Risks associated to people’s healthcare needs had not always been appropriately assessed and recorded. However, staff were aware of how to manage these risks; the issue was that of recording. The registered manager completed appropriate care plan documentation and risks assessments and forwarded these to us after the inspection.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and falls were analysed to review themes and patterns. External healthcare professionals were contacted to provide further assessment and support when concerns were identified.

Safe recruitment practices meant as far as possible only suitable staff were employed. The provider was recruiting additional staff but the deployment of staff was not consistent. The provider took immediate action and reviewed how staff were deployed. Appropriate adjustments were made to ensure people received the level of support they required to keep them safe at all times.

People received their medicines safely but some improvements were required to ensure the management of medicines followed good practice guidelines. The temperature of the medicines fridge was taken daily but not the medicines room. People’s records did not include information about how they liked to take their medicines. Protocols were not in place for medicines prescribed to be taken as and when required. The systems in place to audit that medicines were administered and managed safely were infrequent. The registered manager took immediate action to make improvements and after the inspection forwarded us information to confirm what action they had taken.

Staff received an appropriate induction, training and appropriate support.

The manager applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), so that people's rights were protected. Where people lacked mental capacity to consent to specific decisions about their care and support, appropriate assessments had been completed but improvements were required to ensure best interest decisions were made in line with this legislation. Where there were concerns about restrictions on people’s freedom and liberty, the manager had appropriately applied to the supervisory body for further assessment.

People received sufficient to eat and drink and their nutritional needs had been assessed and planned for. The menu showed that alternatives were available to the main meal option if required. People’s independence was promoted as fully as possible.

People's healthcare needs had been assessed and were regularly monitored. The provider worked with healthcare professionals to ensure they provided an effective and responsive service. External healthcare professionals were positive about how the service met people’s individual needs.

Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards the people they supported. They had a clear understanding of people's individual needs, routines and what was important to them.

The provider enabled people who used the service and their relatives or representatives to share their experience about the service provided.

People were involved as fully as possible in their care and support. The provider’s complaint policy and procedure and information about independent advocacy information was not on display for people. However, the registered manager took immediate action and forwarded us this information after our inspection to confirm this had been displayed for people.

People received limited opportunities to participate in activities, interests and hobbies of their choice. Staff provided activities daily when they could.

The provider had checks in place that monitored the quality and safety of the service. These included daily, weekly and monthly audits. Whilst the provider visited the service weekly, their checks on quality and safety and how they ensured the service was continually improving were informal. The provider assured us that they would develop formal systems and processes.

Inspection carried out on 3 May 2013

During a routine inspection

A person told us, “They are very good here; I wouldn’t like to be anywhere else.” We spent time observing care and saw people were treated with dignity and respect. Care was planned and delivered to meet people’s needs safely.

People told us they had a choice of food. Records showed people’s ability to eat independently was assessed. Appropriate equipment was used to help people maintain their independence.

The cleanliness of the home had improved since our last visit. We saw ongoing improvements to reduce the risk of infection were planned. One person told us, “They keep it clean, they are very orderly.”

We saw there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. One person told us, “The girls are quick to come when you press the bell.”

We saw the manager took account of complaints and identified actions needed to rectify issues.

Inspection carried out on 4 October 2012

During a routine inspection

The people we spoke with were happy with the care and support they got. One person told us, “The staff are all very good.” A relative we spoke with said, “The feedback is good from staff, any issues and they give you a call and let you know what’s going on.” We saw staff treated people with kindness and consideration.

We saw there were not enough care staff available to keep people safe. This meant the manager and other members of staff had been covering caring duties. This had a negative impact on other areas of the home. For example, cleaning staff told us they sometimes got behind with their work as they helped care for people.

When we visited there was an unpleasant smell in the entrance hall and atrium area and in some of the bedrooms. We saw some areas of the home were not as clean as they should be.

Inspection carried out on 7 March 2012

During a routine inspection

The people we spoke with said they were very happy with the care and support they received and felt the home was a safe place to live. They told us staff offered them choice and had respected their privacy and dignity while encouraging them to be as independent as they were able to be. One person told us, “I can’t say how kind they are (the staff) they give excellent TLC (tender loving care) to everyone here, nothing is too much trouble.”

People were complimentary about the meals provided. One person told us, “The food is very good, I don’t eat some food so they make sure I get food I can eat and enjoy.” A relative told us, “The food is homemade, I’ve had meals here and it’s lovely.” They also said that people were offered alternative meals and regular drinks.

People were complimentary about the staff and said they carried out their work competently. They told us they always asked them what they wanted and listened to what they had to say. One person told us, “They are always helpful and look after mum well.” Another person commented, “Nothing is too much trouble for them.”

People we spoke with said they felt comfortable raising any concerns they might have with the manager. When we asked them if there was anything they would like improving at the home they told us they could not think of anything. One person told us, “It’s a nice place to live.” A relative said they had looked round several homes but had chosen this one because it was “very homely”