Willow Court Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider completed comprehensive assessments to understand and meet people's individual needs. Care plans were detailed, person-centred and reflected people's health conditions, preferences and communication needs. Care planning also included condition-specific guidance, risk management and escalation information. This supported staff to provide care that reflected people's assessed needs. Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained accurate and responsive to changes in people's needs.

People, relatives and healthcare professionals told us they were involved in assessing and reviewing care. One person told us, "I know I have a care plan and my daughters are involved with it and so am I." Relatives described contributing to care planning from the outset, while a healthcare professional told us, "I can always find the information I need," and told us staff worked well with them to obtain any missing information following hospital admissions.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff used nationally recognised assessment tools, including in relation to nutrition, to assess and monitor people's needs. Records demonstrated people were referred to relevant healthcare professionals, including dietitians, GPs and other specialist services, where required to support care and treatment that reflected people's assessed needs.

We observed staff delivering care in line with people's assessed needs and recorded care plans. For example, people prescribed modified diets received meals prepared in accordance with their assessed needs, and staff prepared food and drinks safely and appropriately.

People spoke positively about the care they received. One person told us, "There's always plenty of food and drinks." Another person said, "Staff are marvellous with my stoma and look after me so well to keep it clean and regularly changed."

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider routinely monitored people's health outcomes to support effective care. Records demonstrated staff used recognised tools, to monitor people's health and identify changes in their condition. Staff also worked with healthcare professionals to support rehabilitation, skin integrity and mobility.

People and relatives described positive outcomes from the care they received. One relative told us, "Her skin is intact... they monitor it," while another explained a pressure area had healed following appropriate care and they had been kept informed throughout.

People told us staff supported them to achieve outcomes that mattered to them. One person told us, "Staff are really helping me with my mobility since breaking my hip." Relatives also spoke positively about ongoing rehabilitation, with 1 commenting, "They [staff] are trying very, very hard," to improve their family member's mobility and another saying, "The physios are trying," when describing the support provided by the provider's physiotherapy team.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People with capacity consented to their care and treatment, and staff respected people's choices in day-to-day practice. We observed staff knocking before entering bedrooms, seeking consent before providing support and explaining medicines before asking whether people were ready to take them. People, relatives and staff consistently told us consent was sought. One person told us, "The staff do ask for my consent."

The provider had made improvements since the last inspection and continued to strengthen its approach to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had completed MCA and best interests workshops, and we saw decision-specific capacity assessments and best interest decisions for areas such as bed rails and monitoring equipment. This demonstrated the provider was embedding the principles of the MCA into practice.

We identified some records where capacity assessments covered multiple decisions, including medication, personal care, mobility and eating and drinking, rather than assessing each decision separately in line with the MCA. However, we found no evidence people had received care or treatment without their consent or that their rights had been compromised. Leaders had identified that some capacity assessments covered multiple decisions and were continuing to strengthen documentation to ensure assessments were consistently decision specific in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.