Archived: Willow Home Care Ltd

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 inadequate. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

This service scored 25 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. There were no effective systems in place to make sure people and their relatives were involved in developing their care plans. People and relatives told us they had not been involved with developing their care plan. Care plans were not person centred, most of the guidance had been created without the input of relevant people and relatives involved. This meant sections of the care plan were not relevant or did not meet people’s needs. The manager and senior staff did not always know what support was being provided by staff. They described people’s support, but this was not accurate and did not reflect the information contained within care plans. For example, during the assessment the manager told us a person had a diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis (MS). The person did not have this diagnosis. However, they did have a diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy. The senior staff did not have the knowledge to check staff were providing the support required.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Some people received support from other care agencies and this was not clearly documented in people’s care plans. There was no information or guidance about which areas of support each were responsible for and no co-ordinated way of working to ensure people’s care needs were fully met. For example, where Willow Home Care Ltd provided the secondary support to meet people’s care needs, there was no record of the primary agency and no clear guidance around responsibilities.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider did not provide accurate and up to date information to people or their relatives. There were no processes in place to make sure people received information in the way they preferred. People’s communication needs had not been assessed and there was no information in the care plan about these specific needs. Essential information such as the complaints procedure had not been provided in an accessible format. The provider had not provided relatives with accurate information about people’s health and care needs or informed them when things had gone wrong.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Relatives told us they knew how to complain. However, people raised a concern during this assessment around the response received after making a complaint and had not been able to contact the office as the phone kept ringing out. People and relatives had not always been given the opportunity to give feedback through quality assurance surveys. Where concerns were raised people and relatives felt these were not resolved and the concerns would reoccur.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Care plans did not contain information for staff about how to recognise when people were unwell and when to refer people to health professionals. People did not have specific health care plans in place to provide guidance to staff on how to safely support them with their diagnosed condition. There was a risk staff would not refer people as required to health professionals, especially if people did not have someone to advocate on their behalf.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this. The service did not explore with people their religious preferences and practising faiths. Care plans did not evidence any assessment had taken place to gather information around people’s protected characteristics.

People were not 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’s care plans did not always contain future plans, particularly information around end-of-life care. At the time of this assessment nobody was in receipt of end-of-life care. Training evidence provided at the time of this assessment showed us staff had not received training in end-of-life care.