Willowbrook View

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 82 (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 was exceptional at making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People told us they were in control of their daily routines and lifestyle choices, including when they chose to get up, go to bed, and how they spent their day. This flexibility ensured care was genuinely person-led rather than task-driven.

Staff had a strong understanding of people’s histories, preferences and communication styles, which enabled them to deliver highly personalised care. People and their relatives’ comments consistently confirmed this. Relatives told us staff’s encouraging and skilled approach had enabled their loved ones to engage in activities and personal care which they had not done for years. This meant people were supported in a way which reflected their individual needs, preferences and abilities leading to a more fulfilling life.

Staff were frequently described as “like family”, reflecting the strong, trusting relationships they had built with people. This culture of kindness and familiarity ensured people felt safe, valued and truly known as individuals, rather than defined by their care needs.

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.

People and their relatives felt the service kept them up to date and involved in their care provision and any scheduled appointments.

There were good links with a wide range of healthcare professionals, and there was a good working relationship with the GP surgery and district nurses. Referrals were made to external professionals where needed.

One professional commented, “The communication is good, they respond quickly. They let me know if anything changes or if they need my input.”

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

People’s communication needs were clearly outlined in care plans. Where people had additional support needs these were clearly documented. We observed staff speaking with people clearly and bending down to speak to people on their level, where required. We observed several staff members take the time to chat with people to answer their questions. The service had an Accessible Information Standard (AIS) policy to ensure people received information in ways they understood.

Staff and leaders were aware of current technology to support people with sight and hearing.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us when they had made a complaint, they received a response and we saw evidence of this. One relative told us, “They have listened to the families’ requests and taken action.” Another relative commented, “The manager is really good, really listens and when we offer suggestions, they will always say, if you think that’s going to work, we can give it a try.” People also told us the service keeps them informed of any changes or developments in people’s care.

The provider had a complaints policy, and we saw complaints were dealt with transparently and within timescales outlined in the policy.

There were regular meetings for people and for relatives and annual surveys were being completed. A monthly newsletter highlighted what people had said and what the service was doing about it.

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

The provider ensured people had access to the services needed. We observed this through people’s care records. People were supported by the service to attend regular appointments. The service also had a vehicle available to take people directly to their appointments or would arrange transport on behalf of people if that was their preference.

We saw relatives and professionals were closely involved in people’s care and able to represent people’s wishes on their behalf if needed. Care plans contained information about any barriers people might face due to health diagnosis.

The service was accessible for people to mobilise safely.

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

People had access to a wide range of meaningful activities and social opportunities, which were available across different floors of the building. During our observations, we saw several activities taking place where people were actively engaged and clearly enjoying their participation. Staff interacted positively and inclusively with people, supported by dedicated activity staff who led and coordinated these sessions.

The service had effective systems in place to monitor and evaluate how well people’s social needs and outcomes were being met. This ensured that activities remained person-centred, responsive, and inclusive, enabling people from diverse backgrounds and with differing needs to benefit equally from opportunities to engage and participate.

One person living at the service had taken on the role of ‘events champion,’ which enabled them to work collaboratively with staff in planning and supporting activities. It demonstrated how the service promoted equity by recognising individual strengths and ensuring people had access to roles and opportunities that supported their sense of purpose and wellbeing.

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Without exception, feedback from relatives described a highly compassionate and responsive approach during end-of-life care. One relative visited the service during our assessment specifically to share their experience. They told us, “It was such a relief for us as a family. They were proactive rather than reactive. The home prepared [Person] and us about their last wishes. It was a lovely conversation, emotional, they mentioned things to us we would not have thought of. We couldn’t have wanted anything better, they looked after them so well, right until the end. They even organised wellbeing sessions through hairdressing and nails being done.” This showed the provider demonstrated a caring approach to both people and their families through a difficult transition.

People told us the service consistently went above and beyond with families being offered accommodation within the home so they could remain close to their loved ones. They were also offered meals and practical support, ensuring they felt cared for as well. The provider offered bereavement support, guidance with funeral planning, and the opportunity to hold a reception within the service, including the provision of free catering for the event. This approach ensured families felt supported, comforted and not alone, even after their loved one had died.

The service had dedicated end-of-life champions, who acted as a key source of expertise and guidance for staff, people and relatives. They ensured best practice was applied, and that staff were confident to deliver high-quality, compassionate care during this important stage. This resulted in a well-coordinated, skilled and sensitive approach, with continuity and dignity at its core.

People’s wishes and preferences for their future and end-of-life care were clearly documented, regularly reviewed and respected. Advance care planning was embedded into practice, ensuring care remained aligned with individuals’ choices. The provider also worked closely in partnership with district nurses and other healthcare professionals, ensuring people’s clinical needs were managed effectively and that care was seamless, coordinated and responsive.