You are here

Archived: Willowtree House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The inspection took

place on the 27 October 2015 and was unannounced.

Willowtree House provides

accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a learning

disability. It is part of Delos Community Limited which provides four other

care homes within the local area. At the time of our visit six people were

living at Willowtree House.

There was a

registered manager in post. 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.

People felt safe.

Staff had an understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that

should be followed to report abuse and people had risk assessments in place

to enable them to be as independent as possible. 

Effective

recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service and there

were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people’s care and support

needs

Medicines were

stored, handled and administered safely within the service.

Staff members had

induction training when joining the service, as well as regular on going

training.

Staff were well

supported by the registered manager and had regular one to one supervisions

and yearly appraisals.

 

People’s consent

was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental

Capacity Act 2005 and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were met.

People were able to

choose the food and drink they wanted and staff supported people with this.

 

People were

supported to access health appointments when necessary, including doctors,

dentists and speech therapists.

 

Staff supported

people in a caring manner. They knew the people they were supporting well and

understood their requirements for care.

People were

involved in their own care planning and were able to contribute to the way in

which they were supported.

People’s privacy

and dignity was maintained at all times.

People were

supported to take part in a range of activities and social interests of their

choice.

The service had a

complaints procedure in place and people knew how to use it.

  Quality monitoring

systems and processes were used effectively to drive future    improvement and

identify where action was needed

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The service was safe.

Staff were knowledgeable about protecting people from harm and abuse.

There were enough trained staff to support people with their needs.

Staff had been recruited using a robust recruitment process.

Systems were in place for the safe management of medicines.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The service was effective.

Staff had attended a variety of training to keep their skills up to date and were supported with regular supervision.

People could make choices about their food and drink and were provided with support when required.

People had access to health care professionals to ensure they received effective care or treatment.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The service was caring.

People were able to make decisions about their daily activities.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.

People were treated with dignity and respect, and had the privacy they required

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The service was responsive.

Care and support plans were personalised and reflected people’s individual requirements.

People were involved in decisions regarding their care and support needs.

There was a complaints system in place. People were aware of this.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 December 2015

The service was well led.

People and their relatives knew the registered manager and were able to see her when required.

People and their relatives were asked for, and gave, feedback which was acted on.

Quality monitoring systems were in place and were effective.