You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

Willowbrook provides personal care within an assisted living scheme for people aged 55 and over. The complex comprises of 79 apartments. They are for single person or double occupancy. At the time of the inspection there were 57 people in receipt of a service.

This was the first inspection of Willowbrook since it was registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 August 2016.

A registered manager was in place. 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 said they were safe and staff were kind and approachable. There were sufficient staff to provide safe and individual care to people. People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. When new staff were appointed, vetting checks were carried out to make sure they were suitable to work with people who needed care and support.

Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks. Staff knew the needs of the people they supported to provide individual care.

People had positive relationships with their care workers and were confident in the service. There was a very strong emphasis on key principles of care such as compassion, respect and dignity. People were overwhelmingly positive about the care and support provided by staff. They all said they were treated with kindness and their privacy and dignity were always respected.

Appropriate training was provided and staff were supervised and supported. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decision making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves. People received a varied and balanced diet to meet their nutritional needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed. Systems were in place for people to receive their medicines in a safe way.

People and staff spoke well of the registered manager and they said the service had good leadership. There were effective systems to enable people to raise complaints, and to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People told us they would feel confident to speak to staff about any concerns if they needed to.

The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided. People had the opportunity to give their views about the service. There was regular consultation with people or family members and their views were used to improve the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was safe.

People were kept safe as systems were in place to ensure their safety and well-being. People received their medicines in a safe way. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs safely and flexibly and appropriate checks were carried out before staff began to work with people.

People were protected from abuse as staff had received training with regard to safeguarding. Staff were able to identify any instances of possible abuse and would report it if it occurred.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were supported to carry out their role and they were given a good level of training to help them care for people effectively.

People’s rights were protected. Best interest decisions were made on behalf of people, when they were unable to give consent to their care and treatment.

Changes in people’s needs were quickly recognised and appropriate, prompt action taken, including the involvement of external professionals where necessary. People were provided with appropriate support in meeting their nutritional needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was extremely caring.

The registered manager and staff were committed to a strong person centred culture. Kindness, respect, compassion and dignity were key principles on which the service was built and values that were reflected in the day-to-day practice of the service.

People who used the service valued the relationships they had with care workers and expressed great satisfaction with the care they received. People were pleased with the consistency of their care workers and felt that their care was provided in the way they wanted it to be.

People said care workers always treated them with kindness and respect and often went above and beyond their roles. Staff built meaningful relationships with people who used the service and were given time to meet their needs and provide companionship.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People said the service was very flexible and based on their personal wishes and preferences. Where changes in people’s care packages were requested, these were made quickly and without any difficulties.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and wishes. Records were in place that reflected people's current care and support needs.

People had information to help them complain. Complaints and any action taken were recorded.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 September 2017

The service was well-led.

The service had a registered manager in post. The registered manager promoted strong values and a person centred culture. People using the service, their relatives and staff were very positive about their approach and commitment.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, which included regular audits and feedback from people using the service, their relatives and staff.