We carried out a review of the data available to us about Willowmead Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Willowmead Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Willowmead Court is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to people living in specialist extra care housing. The service can support up to 12 people in a purpose built complex of 12 individual apartments, designed to enable people over the age of 60 to retain as much independence, choice and control over their lives as possible.
At the time of our inspection 12 people were in receipt of personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider’s quality monitoring systems were not always followed which meant the provider could not be assured that people received safe, quality care. The provider's policies and procedures were not always reviewed within their own time scales and did not always reference current legislation or national guidance. Audits and checks completed by the registered manager and care co-ordinator did not always identify areas we found during our inspection. The regional manager and registered manager took immediate action to rectify this. We have made a recommendation about quality assurance systems.
In all other ways the service was being well managed. People received their medicines as prescribed and the service had good oversight of risks and implemented appropriate safe measures. Staff told us there was good team work and the registered manager and care co-ordinator were supportive. People's views were sought in 'resident meetings' and surveys and action was taken in response to suggestions raised.
The service understood people’s communication needs. However, the registered manager was not familiar with regulation about people’s communication needs called the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and this was not referenced within the provider’s policy and procedure. We have made a recommendation about the AIS.
People told us the service supported them to participate in activities to meet their interests. Information contained in people's care plans was personalised and included people's preference and background. All staff we spoke with demonstrated a sound knowledge of people's needs and preferences. People understood how to make a complaint and a robust complaints policy and procedure was in place. The service planned to improve information captured about people’s end of life care and had received training in this.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People's needs were assessed and delivered in line with current guidance. Staff co-ordinated with each other or agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely care. People benefited from suitably trained staff to meet their needs.
People received care which consistently promoted their privacy, dignity or independence. People and relatives said staff treated them well. We observed staff were caring in their interactions and people appeared relaxed in staff company.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 2 February 2017).
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Care and support are provided by staff from 07.30 am to 10pm, seven days a week. In addition, there is an out of hours on call system. At the time of our inspection there were 12 people using the service. The service was previously inspected in October 2013 where it was found to be fully compliant with regulations. The service had 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.
Everyone we spoke with commented how kind the staff were. Comments included, “I love it here” and “I can’t fault the place.” Care plans recorded people’s likes and dislikes and provided staff with information to enable them to provide care and support effectively. We saw people were cared for with compassion and respect. Staff were well trained and motivated. The registered manager and care coordinator provided effective leadership to the service and held regular meetings with people who used the service and their families to ensure people were involved in the running of the home.
The service was well led and people’s care was regularly reviewed. The care co-ordinator and registered manager had an excellent oversight of the service. Staff told us they felt happy and supported in their role. A visiting professional told us, “The service is very well run, if I ask them to carry out any instructions they will always follow the advice, they are very attentive.”
Medicines were managed safely and people had support from staff where needed. For example, some people only needed prompting to take their medicines whereas other people required staff to administer their medicines. Staff told us when the medicines were given to people the chart was signed to confirm people had received their medicines. Staff had received training in the safe administration of medicines and had been assessed as competent thereafter.
Safe recruitment procedures were carried out recruitment files we saw contained relevant documentation required to ensure only suitable staff were appointed. Staff received appropriate induction training and supervisions.
People knew how to make a complaint and were given the information to do so when they first joined the service. Staff were aware of the process to follow if someone made a complaint. This was in line with the service’s complaints procedure.
People had access to healthcare services to maintain good health. We spoke with one person who told us, “I have only been here for a few weeks, and have regular physiotherapy to improve my mobility.”
People told us staff will spend time with them to ensure their needs are met. One person said, “Even though the staff are very busy they always find time to chat to you.”
All the flats we visited were cleaned to a high standard and were individualised by the people who lived there.
There was a social afternoon every Wednesday in one of the main lounge areas which were within the complex. In addition people could join in social activities taking place in the residential home next to Willowmead Court. Staff told us, “If we have entertainment next door people can go along if they want to.”
The service had quality monitoring systems in place to drive improvements and ensure the safety of people who used the service.
We looked at a range of people's weekly activity plans and we noted that a broad range of weekday, evenings and weekend activities were promoted. We spoke with one person who told us, 'I am independent and I am able to go out when I want to, since I have been living here I have been given the support to help me walk again meaning I do not have to use a wheelchair. It is perfect.'
We spoke with three care staff who told us that they supported people to be as independent as possible and supported them to work towards and achieve personal leisure activities or social goals. We looked at four care files that demonstrated the personalised approach in place to support the staff's comments. We observed that the manager operated a model of good practice by offering staff regular supervision and access to a framework of training and support that enabled them to provide a high quality of care.
We observed staff treating people with respect and were able to see that there was a good relationship between staff and people who used the service. We observed staff assessing people's needs and ensuring that care was provided in line with individual care plans. We were able to see that people were comfortable and that there was adequate numbers of staff available to provide the individualised support needed.
We found the service had arrangements in place to provide the care and support people required. Before people received any care or support they were asked for their consent and staff acted in accordance with their wishes. The service had procedures to protect people from the risk of abuse. People were looked after by staff who were appropriately trained and supported. The provider had arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service provided to people.