Green Willow Care 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 as Good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

People’s needs were assessed by the management team, together with people and their relatives before they moved into the home. Care plans were shaped from these discussions and detailed people’s needs. Reviews took place regularly to ensure that care was still in line with people’s needs and wishes. The registered manager told us, “When possible, we invite relatives to do the preadmission assessment with us. Our wellbeing team work to understand a person’s life and history.” A relative told us, “I have been so impressed how quickly the staff have got to know my mum. She is very happy being a resident of Green Willow.”

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.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in decision making and their views were evident throughout their care documentation. Care plans were person centred and detailed. They included nutrition and hydration needs. Staff used assessment tools to ensure people’s needs were identified and safely met. For example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was used to assess people’s likelihood of malnutrition. Policies were in line with national good practice guidelines and staff knew people well.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff spoke highly about working together to ensure people’s needs were met. A staff member said, “I really like working with everyone and working at this home, we’re like a big family.” External health and social care services spoke highly of their working relationship with the provider. A professional told us, “[Staff] routinely contact me in advance to arrange visits and are keen for the reviews to take place each year. Following completion, any actions highlighted are addressed promptly.” The registered manager echoed this and said, “I’m confident my staff would recognise when people are poorly, they always raise issues. We have a good relationship with health professionals”.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People had choice and control over their daily lives which promoted their independence. Relatives spoke highly of the attention given to engage their family member in activities which had a positive impact on them. A relative said, “[Person] truly enjoys taking part in the daily activities, which have made a meaningful difference to her wellbeing and happiness.” Care plans were detailed to effectively support peoples’ health, care and wellbeing.

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.

People’s care plans detailed their care needs including specific health or dietary conditions, preferences about their support and how staff ensured these were met. People had routine health checks, including medication reviews. The provider worked closely with the GP when monitoring conditions. The service demonstrated they were reactive to concerns raised by relatives and quickly resolved issues to improve people’s outcomes. A relative told us how staff acted quickly when they realised a walking aid was not right for their mother. They said it was changed which resulted in “her walking now is 100 times better – especially as staff encourage mum to walk.”

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

People were asked for consent, and this was documented in both their care plans and their daily activity notes. Care plans evidenced people’s preferences, for example whether they preferred female or male staff for personal care. Staff had knowledge of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood the importance of gaining consent prior to supporting people. There was 1 person in receipt of DoLS at the time of our inspection with the correct paperwork in place.