Willow House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider promoted a positive learning culture and sought feedback to identify where improvements could be made. Relatives described opportunities to share their views with the management team. One relative told us, “Yes, often they give me a sheet to fill in on how I’ve found it and make comments.”

Relatives also described improvements following previous concerns. One relative told us they had raised concerns about their family member not going out at weekends and said, “recently has got better.” This demonstrated the provider was receptive to feedback and used people’s experiences to support improvements in the service.

The provider worked with people, relatives and external professionals to support safe and coordinated care. Staff shared relevant information and kept relatives informed when people needed support from other services, including hospital care.

Relatives described good communication when people’s health needs changed or they needed to attend appointments. One relative told us, “If [person] has to go to the hospital, they let me know.”

We also spoke with a Court of Protection appointed Deputy, who told us, “People are safe and well looked after.” This provided additional assurance about the safety and quality of the support people received.

This helped support continuity of care and ensured people’s needs were communicated when they accessed other services.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Most people living at the service were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to identify where restrictions on people’s freedom required legal authorisation and to ensure these were considered within the relevant legal framework.

Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe at the service. One relative told us, “I’m happy [person] is safe and secure.”

The provider worked with people and those important to them to identify and manage risks while supporting people’s choices and independence. We reviewed risk assessments which identified individual risks and contained guidance for staff on how these should be managed. These were reviewed when people’s needs changed. Records showed people were involved in discussions about risks affecting their daily lives, with their views, preferences and preferred support strategies reflected in risk management plans. Staff also worked with relatives, advocates and other professionals where appropriate to agree and review measures to keep people safe while promoting choice and autonomy.

Staff considered people’s individual abilities and preferences when managing risks and involved relatives where appropriate. One relative described how their family member’s mobility needs had changed and additional equipment was required. They told us, “They went and got a hoist.” This showed the provider had responded to the person’s changing mobility needs while taking account of their preference to remain in familiar surroundings. Risk records also evidenced discussions with people about areas such as health needs, community access, finances and personal care, helping to ensure support was tailored to individual circumstances.

The provider did not always ensure the environment was safe. The home was generally clean and well maintained. However, during our visit we found 2 cupboards containing cleaning products and other substances which should have been secured were unlocked. One was in the kitchen and the other was in the sensory room. This increased the risk that people could access potentially harmful substances.

We raised this with the registered manager, who took immediate action to secure the cupboards. The provider also designed an easy‑read guidance poster with pictorial support with clear visual cues to promote safety awareness.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs

Staff recruitment records showed appropriate pre-employment checks had been completed, including Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, references and employment histories. New staff completed induction and ongoing training relevant to their roles. Supervision and competency checks were used to support staff development. Staffing arrangements promoted continuity of care, with people supported by staff who knew their needs, routines and communication preferences and who could seek guidance from managers when required.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Relatives were also positive about the cleanliness of the service and people’s personal care. One relative told us, “Whenever you go the place it is clean” Another relative described the home as “well kept, clean.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. This included supporting people to reduce medicines when appropriate, in line with the principles of STOMP, the national programme aimed at reducing the inappropriate use of psychotropic medicines for people with a learning disability and autistic people.

The registered manager described additional daily checks designed to reduce the risk of medicines being missed or discrepancies going unidentified. Staff counted each person’s medicines every morning before handover and repeated the count at the end of the shift. This enabled staff to identify and address any discrepancies promptly.

The registered manager demonstrated clear oversight of medicines management and the systems used to support safe administration and recording.