Archived: Willowbrook Homecare

This was the services first inspection at this location since its registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Willowbrook Homecare is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The St Annes location provides a service to a small group of people living in the local area. The office base is situated near the town centre. Services are provided to older people, those with mental health requirements and to younger adults with physical disabilities. A range of services is offered including, personal care, domestic tasks and a sleep/wake support. At the time of the inspection visit the service provided support for 116 people.

There was a registered manager 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.

We found the service had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to provide safe care for people.

People who used the service told us they felt safe with staff from Willowbrook Care and look forward to their visits. One person said, “They have been brilliant it is a pleasure to see them. It makes me feel at ease and safe knowing people who look after me are coming every day.”

The registered manager made sure new staff had a full employment history and obtained recruitment checks before employing them. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and their agreed care packages. We found staff had training to develop their skills.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care and when staff visited homes of people. These had been reviewed when changes occurred.

Staff knew people they supported and provided a service that was suited for the individual. Care plans were in place detailing how people wished their care to be delivered. People told us they had been involved in making decisions about their care.

We found medication procedures at the service were safe. Staff who would be responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required.

People supported by the service told us staff who visited them were polite, reliable, patient and respectful in their approach to their work. A relative/carer of a person who used the service said, “They are really good. When I am there they are so polite and respectful I have no problem leaving [relative] in their care. I would recommend the agency to anyone.”

The registered manager understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

The service had a complaints procedure which was made available to people when they received a service. People we spoke with told us they were happy and had no complaints.

The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included spot checks, care plan reviews and staff meetings. We found people who used the service were satisfied with support they received.

Staff, people who received a service and relatives told us the registered manager was supportive and approachable. The management team met with people and provided opportunities for them to comment about the quality of their care.

However we did look at the recruitment practices in respect of two newly appointed staff. We saw that improvements had been made. All the required checks and clearances had been obtained and deemed to be satisfactory before the person started their employment with the service.

We were told that there was a good level of staff consistency with the same small group of staff visiting, that people got to know well. We were also consistently told that staff appeared competent to carry out their allocated roles and that people had confidence in the staff team.

One person said, 'The girls are great, I look forward to them coming. They will always ask me if there is anything else I need doing, it's just like a family'. Another person told us, 'They are all very obliging and will go to the fish and chip shop when we ask them. I cannot fault them, they are all very good'.

We saw there were good systems in place to monitor the quality of the service they provided. This meant that any shortfalls could be quickly addressed. However we noted that although there were clear procedures in place for assisting with medication, the way this was recorded could on occasions, have been strengthened.

Although the recruitment procedures were robust, the procedure had not always been correctly followed. This meant that the provider could not be sure that the applicant was suitable to work for the agency.