Willow Court Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff interactions were consistently caring and considerate, supporting people in a way that promoted wellbeing and comfort.

People reflected positively on staff. Comments included: “Everyone here is very kind, polite and so very helpful,” “The staff are very good,” “I like most of them,” “They treat us great,” and “If we don’t look very well, they get worried about you. They’re very kind, the people that look after us.”

Relatives also highlighted staff attentiveness and thoughtfulness. One relative said, “The people are all very nice, lovely and friendly people to my relative and to me. I feel that they care for me as well as my relative, as they always ask how I am.”

Staff understood and respected people’s preferences, interests, and routines, ensuring care remained personalised and respectful.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s individual interests and routines were acknowledged and incorporated into daily care. For example, 1 relative explained, “My relative is a birdwatcher and when we asked if a bird table could be put up outside our relative’s window, no sooner had we got one and brought it in than it was up and my relative was watching the birds again, which brings them joy.” Another person commented, “I’m not one for participating in things but staff gives me the word search section of the newspaper as they know I like doing it.” These examples demonstrate how staff supported meaningful personal interests, enhancing quality of life and wellbeing.

This approach meant that people experienced care that was personalised and meaningful. Staff knowledge of each person enabled them to anticipate needs, respond promptly to preferences, and support independence where possible. People felt valued, respected, and recognised as individuals.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People told us they had limited choice regarding meals. For example, 1 person told us, “The food is disgusting and it’s the same menu. It never varies”. Another person stated, ““The food could be improved. It’s the same menu every week”.

Opportunities for activities were also limited. Records showed that 4 people participated in only 4 activities over the course of a month, which included visits from family members. This limited engagement reduced opportunities for social and cognitive stimulation, meaning some people had little opportunity to follow their interests or maintain independence.

Some people expressed satisfaction with their experiences despite these limitations. One person said, “I’m quite happy in my room. I’m not anti-social but I’ve just got all I need here.” They added, “I’ve been to a couple of activities. They had a lovely singing one. It was Indian singing, costumes and food.” These comments indicate that while engagement opportunities existed, access and variety were inconsistent.

Limited choice over meals and activities reduced opportunities for people to exercise control over their routines, which can affect wellbeing, engagement, and quality of life.

The provider acknowledged these gaps and was taking action to improve choice and engagement. A monthly activities planner had been introduced, and menu options were expanded, with further discussions planned with the hospital catering team to increase variety. These measures aimed to enhance independence, choice, and control, ensuring that people could participate more meaningfully in decisions about their care and daily life.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed staff responding to call bells and verbal requests for assistance. Most people told us call bells were answered in a timely manner, although response times varied and were occasionally delayed when staff were busy.

Call bells were accessible, and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s individual needs. For example, 1 person told us, “I’m a diabetic and sometimes my sugar levels drop at night, and I have to call them so they can bring me something to eat. They’re good like that”.

We observed another person calling out for help with their lunch, and staff intervened promptly as soon as they had finished assisting another person. These practices meant that people’s immediate needs were recognised and addressed, helping to reduce discomfort, distress, and anxiety.

The provider reinforced staff responsiveness through regular call bell audits and ongoing monitoring. This oversight supported consistent practice and ensured staff were aware of their responsibilities to respond promptly and appropriately to people’s needs.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff.

Staff told us they felt under pressure due to staffing levels and competing demands, which sometimes made it difficult to support people effectively. A staff member told us, “Often, I come onto a shift where staff are stressed, run down, and overworked. Simply giving them the opportunity to express their frustrations can make a big difference.” Another staff member said, “

I don’t feel valued or supported. Staff concerns are often ignored or brushed aside. This makes it hard to feel valued or heard”.

Views were mixed with most staff describing periods of stress and low morale. Some staff felt that general concerns were not always acknowledged and that interactions with the registered manager and more senior team members could at times, feel judgemental. Others reported feeling supported and valued by management, in particular by the nurses, the deputy managers and the service manager. This mixed view from staff could affect their ability to provide consistent, high-quality care.

The provider acknowledged these concerns and was taking steps to improve workforce wellbeing. Planned actions include enhancing leadership support, promoting constructive staff engagement, and reviewing workloads to ensure staff can focus on delivering person-centred care.