Willowcroft Care 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 changed to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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.

Care records were in place and intended to be person-centred, reflecting individuals’ needs and preferences; however, inconsistencies and inaccuracies were identified, meaning records did not consistently or reliably reflect people’s current needs. This placed individuals at risk of receiving inappropriate or ineffective care and demonstrated that improvements were required. The registered manager was also aware of how lengthy the care plans were which made it difficult to highlight people’s needs. The registered manager was responsive and acknowledged the concerns, stating they would take action to address the required improvements.

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. Staff worked together to ensure people experienced smooth transitions between different parts of the service and did not have to repeat information unnecessarily. Assessments of people’s needs were shared appropriately, helping maintain consistent support when people moved between teams or accessed external services. There was a weekly GP ward round within the home, where leaders effectively raised any health care needs for review.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Although people’s communication needs were recorded within their care plans, this was not consistent. For example, one person's communication care plan said they could not verbally communicate, but also said they were able to verbally communicate in English. This contradictory information could impact upon how staff communicate with people living at Willowcroft Care Home.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Surveys were completed by residents, relatives and staff. The last survey was 6 months ago. This information was analysed, however these had not been reviewed effectively with action or changes implemented. This demonstrates feedback was not used effectively and therefore people were not always listened to.

There was a ‘you said we did’ poster in reception which highlighted concerns with staffing levels a year ago. The provider responded to this stating they had recruited more staff, however staffing levels were still an issue at this inspection.

People told us they were not always involved in decisions about their care and there was no assurance that people had been involved in changes or reviews of their care. People had alarms put on their bedroom doors. One person we spoke with told us, “I was not asked they just put it on, they have not been told me why it is on”.

The provider ensured people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when required. People had access to healthcare services and external support, and referrals were made appropriately. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s needs were met, and there was no evidence that people experienced barriers to accessing care or support.

The home was over 3 floors, however people were still supported to access the outdoor areas if they were not on the ground floor.

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

Staff had completed training around Equality, Diversity and Human Rights. Staff showed a good awareness of what discrimination meant and how to challenge any concerns. Processes were in place to help ensure people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights.

Staff described how they would escalate concerns, adapt their approach and work with the registered manager to ensure people received care that met their individual needs.

Resident meetings and surveys had been completed; however, it was unclear what action had been taken as a result of people’s feedback.

People were 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.

People had detailed and personalised end of life documentation. These included their preferences on care, where and how they would like to be supported at the end stages of their lives, along with choices for funeral care where this had been arranged.