Willow House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first time we have inspected the service since the provider changed. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people and their relatives, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. This meant people received the most up to date support in line with their changing needs.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the service provided, which met their specific needs. Staff told us providing a service to meet people’s specific needs was “the reason why they come to work”. This approach was reflected in the care records we reviewed. Comments from people included “Staff help me do what I want to do” and “Staff take me to all of my activities”.

Daily care notes were detailed and staff had written about conversations they had with people. This reflected care was being delivered in a person-centred way.

People chose their own menus and staff supported people to cook. People wanted to show us their menus and were proud of the food they had chosen.

Staff spoke to us about how they supported people to make choices based on health conditions. For example a person with diabetes received support around choices of foods with low sugar content. This meant a person’s diet was tailored to their specific health requirements.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities. Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff and leaders kept professionals up to date with any concerning information about a person’s wellbeing. They were also invited to care reviews, which enabled coordinated and improved support for the person to be implemented.

Leaders were knowledgeable about people’s diverse health and social care needs. They gave examples of these and explained how other professionals were involved to ensure the person’s wellbeing. For example, leaders described one person who often became anxious. They said they regularly liaised with other professionals about this, to ensure the most appropriate support was being provided.

People told us the service worked well with other professionals when needed. This included local GP surgeries, occupational therapists, social workers and pharmacies.

Staff liaised with people’s relatives once consent to do so had been sought. Supportive measures included newsletters for relatives and stakeholders, and scheduled calls to update relatives. This was especially useful for relatives who did not live locally but who wanted to ensure their relatives were receiving responsive support.

The provider supplied appropriate and accurate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff rostering was completed four weeks in advance which enabled people to know who was supporting them each day. The registered manager told us about information being available to people in different formats to support their understanding, but that people preferred staff to talk to them about any changes.

People had a staffing board on the wall in the communal area which let them know who was supporting them that day.

The provider made it easy for people and relatives to discuss and update their support, feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them of any changes.

The provider completed reviews with people to give them opportunity to discuss their support. The registered manager liaised with commissioners and stakeholders to ensure people were receiving regular service reviews.

One person told us “If I had any concerns, I would tell the staff”. Other people said if they were not happy, staff would know. The provider had an easy read complaints policy for people.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Assessments covering the accessibility of the home and whether any adaptations, equipment or referrals to occupational therapists were needed had been completed.

People could choose who they wanted to support them for planned events. If additional support was needed, the provider ensured staff were made available for this. This demonstrated the provider was putting reasonable adjustments in place on an individual basis to ensure all people received a service that was holistic in its approach. The staffing roster was arranged flexibly to support people’s needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff had completed equality and diversity training and respected each person as an individual. People and relatives were fully involved in developing people’s support plans and risk assessments and could make changes at any time they wished.

People told us they were supported to access services to meet their healthcare needs. They said their rights were promoted and they could share their views about their service. This was through calling the office, care reviews and surveys.

People were treated individually and despite potential barriers such as health and mobility, were supported to access the community and to undertake a range of activities.

People were supported to apply for concessionary cinema passes to enable them to go to the cinema with their staff.

People were supported to plan for important life changes. This allowed them enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff were aware of people’s wishes for the future, for example whether people wanted to go to hospital for further treatment or whether they wished to remain at home. These decisions were recorded in ReSPECT forms (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment). The ReSPECT form ensures people’s wishes are followed should they become ill or have to go to hospital. This information was also recorded in people’s care plans.

The provider had end of life documents in place including hospital passport forms. These outlined what people wanted should they become unwell, what people can do for themselves, what they need help with and how hospital staff should support them.