Willow Court Nursing Home

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Observations and people’s feedback indicated that interactions between staff, people, and relatives were kind and respectful, and relatives told us staff kept them informed about changes in people’s needs. However, while some care plans demonstrated a strong person-centred approach, others were incomplete or lacked sufficient detail to guide staff in providing care that reflected individual preferences and priorities. This inconsistency meant that, at times, people’s choices were not fully incorporated into day-to-day care, limiting opportunities for personalised support and engagement.

The provider acknowledged these gaps and had taken steps to improve person-centred practice. Care plans were being reviewed and updated to include detailed information about preferences, routines, and individual priorities. To support this, the provider introduced the “Resident of the Day” initiative, which allowed staff to focus on certain individual each day. This approach included reviewing the person’s care plan and risk assessments holistically, discussing choices, and providing tailored support for daily activities and routines. It also created a structured opportunity for people to give feedback, highlight concerns, and participate in decisions about their care.

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

The provider worked with other services, to ensure people received continuity of care. Examples included social workers and health professionals. Details of this support was recorded in people’s care records.

Feedback from health and social care professionals was positive about the way the service maintained continuity of care for people. Comments included, “The service works very well with my teams. They are evidence based in their approach. They are transparent about which individuals they are able to support from hospital, and who would not be manageable for the service. They have worked closely with me and my teams to deliver good outcomes to those in the service”.This meant people experienced smooth transitions, consistent care, and responsive support.

Continuity was maintained across shifts and services, reducing stress and contributing to positive health outcomes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff kept people and their relatives informed about their care, support, and services available. They ensured that information was accessible and understandable, providing explanations verbally, in writing, or through visual aids as appropriate. This supported people to make informed decisions about their care and daily lives.

Staff communicated with people and their relatives about changes in care plans, routines, or health conditions and were readily available to answer questions and clarify information. Communication was adapted to meet individual needs, including for those with cognitive impairments, or language barriers.

Relatives told us they felt well-informed and included in discussions, and staff shared updates with each other and relevant health professionals. This meant people and relatives were empowered with information, promoting transparency, involvement, and confidence in the care provided.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, raise concerns, and contribute ideas about their care, treatment, and support. Staff actively involved people in decisions about their care and ensured they were informed about changes resulting from their feedback.

For example, following a complaint that a person had run out of personal toiletries, the provider introduced a daily check of people’s’ supplies. This ensured staff could promptly contact relatives or take action to prevent future shortages. Records from residents’ meetings demonstrated that people were regularly consulted about their experiences and preferences, and complaints were managed appropriately, with clear documentation of investigations and outcomes.

One person said, “I feel I could discuss things with any of the staff if I had any concerns. I also go to the relatives meeting every month. We discuss things and the staff explain things that are happening here, including activities”.

Staff were committed to listening to people and acting on feedback, ensuring that concerns were addressed and improvements implemented. This approach helped people feel valued and included, encouraging open communication and responsiveness. As a result, people and their relatives were able to participate meaningfully in care decisions and service improvements.

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

People received timely services, including GP support, district nursing, mental health services, pharmacy services, and emergency or out-of-hours healthcare. This included access during evenings and weekends, ensuring that urgent needs were addressed without delay.

Staff coordinated effectively with other healthcare services to support prompt admissions, transfers, and continuity of care. This promoted fairness and inclusivity, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of the timing of their needs, received safe, timely, and appropriate support.

Staff and leaders did not always actively seek or respond to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in their care or outcomes. This meant care was not consistently tailored to meet individual needs, which meant some people’s experiences and outcomes were less positive.

For example, 1 person’s referral information stated they wore glasses, and the property records from their hospital discharge indicated they had 2 pairs of spectacles, 1 of which was broken. However, their care plan recorded: ‘according to external referral he has glasses but not seen with him’. There was no evidence that the provider made any referrals or took action to follow this up. The person had been in the service for just over a month. As a result, their specific needs relating to vision support were not being met.

The provider acknowledged that, due to the short-term nature of some placements, individuals were not automatically referred to the opticians. This approach risked overlooking the needs of people requiring sensory support, potentially impacting their engagement, safety, and overall quality of experience during their stay.

This highlighted a gap in ensuring equitable experiences and outcomes, particularly for those with additional or specific requirements, and demonstrated the need for more consistent attention to individual needs regardless of placement duration.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care plans were inconsistent in quality. While some were person-centred and clearly documented advanced decisions and end-of-life preferences, others were incomplete and contained little to no information to guide staff in delivering safe and appropriate care.

Without consistent support and documentation, individuals were less able to plan ahead, have their preferences recognised, or ensure care aligned with their wishes. This also increased the risk that, in the event of unexpected deterioration or sudden death, decisions might not reflect the person’s preferences or best interests.

The registered manager explained that these conversations could be challenging due to the temporary nature of some of people’s placements and people’s reluctance to discuss sensitive matters. However, evidence that these discussions had taken place were not always available, and these gaps restricted people’s autonomy and limited their ability to make informed choices about future care.

The provider acknowledged these gaps and introduced a section within the pre-assessment plan to include advanced decisions and end-of-life discussions aiming to ensure that relevant information can be gathered at an early stage, prior to admission, and then further explored with people and their families after arrival.