You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

We completed an unannounced inspection at The Willows on 09 July 2018. At our previous inspection on 08 December 2016 we found that improvements were needed to ensure medicines were managed safely, records were accurate and the systems in place to manage the service were effective. The service was rated as Requires Improvement overall. At this inspection we found that the provider had made the required improvements.

The Willows is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The Willows accommodates a maximum of 12 people. People are supported across two separate houses with each house accommodating up to six people. At the time of the inspection there were ten people using the service. The Willows follow the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received safe care and we found there were enough staff to provide support to people that met their needs. We found that people’s risks were assessed and managed to protect them from the risk of harm and people received their medicines safely. The provider had safe recruitment procedures in place to ensure that staff were of a good character and suitable to support people who used the service. People were protected from infection and cross contamination risks.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and staff sought people’s consent before they carried out support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People’s nutritional needs were met and people had positive mealtime experiences. People had access to health care services and advice sought was followed by staff to ensure people’s health and wellbeing was maintained. Staff received training to enable them to support people effectively. The environment was designed and adapted to meet people’s needs and promote independence.

People were treated with dignity and staff were caring and kind. People’s privacy was respected an upheld, people chose to have time to themselves in their private rooms and staff respected their wishes. Staff encouraged people’s independence and understood people’s individual communication needs. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with relatives/friends.

People were supported with interests and hobbies that were important to them. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Staff knew people well, which meant people were supported in line with their preferences. People understood how to complain if they needed to because complaints procedures were in a format that people understood. Plans were in place to gain people’s views of how they wanted to be supported at the end of their life.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received. People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about the service. The registered manager was approachable and supportive to both people and staff and understood the requirements of their registration with us (CQC).

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff knew people�s risks and supported them to remain as independent as possible whilst protecting their safety. There were enough suitably recruited staff available to meet people�s needs. Medicines were managed safely and infection control measures were in place to protect people from potential infection risks. Systems were in place to ensure that improvements were made when issues had been identified.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

The service was effective.

People enjoyed the food and were involved in the planning and preparation of meals. People were supported with their nutritional needs, which ensured they maintained their health and wellbeing.

People were supported to consent to their care. Where people were unable to make specific decisions, systems were in place to ensure that decisions were made in people�s best interests and in the least restrictive way.

People received support from staff who were sufficiently trained. People�s health was monitored and health professionals� input was sought and followed where needed.

People were involved in the decoration of the service and the environment was designed and adapted to promote people�s safety, independence and social inclusion.

People�s care needs were assessed before they used the service and systems were in place to ensure that people received consistent care from staff and other agencies.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were caring and showed patience and compassion when they supported people. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and their rights to privacy were upheld. People were supported to make choices in the way their care was provided and staff encouraged people to maintain their daily living skills. Staff understood people�s individual way of communicating and people were supported to maintain links with friends and family.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People accessed the community with support and participated in hobbies and interests that met their preferences. People�s preferences in the way they received their care were respected by staff.

People�s care was reviewed and updated to ensure they received care that met their changing needs. People�s end of life wishes were sought to ensure people were supported in line with their needs in a way that met their preferences.

People knew how to make a complaint and the complaints procedure was available to people in a format they understood.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 August 2018

The service was well led.

There were systems in place to monitor and manage the service. The registered manager and provider had a clear overview of the service.

People, relatives and staff felt able to approach the registered manager. People and staff had been asked for feedback which informed service delivery. Staff felt supported in their role.

The registered manager worked in partnership with other agencies to make improvements to the way people received their care and they understood their responsibilities of their registration.