Archived: Willow Court

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

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care was tailored to people’s individual preferences and routines. Staff supported people to make choices about how they lived their daily lives. Relatives told us people could personalise their care and make decisions that reflected what mattered to them.

People described being involved in choosing how they spent their time. One relative said, “My [family member] can pick what activities [family member] does.” Staff told us they encouraged people to take part in their care where possible and offered reassurance and guidance to help maintain independence. Care plans reflected people’s likes, dislikes and cultural or personal preferences which helped staff provide support in a person-centred way.

People received care that was coordinated and consistent across the staff team. Staff shared information effectively during handovers and through the electronic care system which helped ensure everyone was aware of changes in people’s needs. Relatives told us they were kept informed about updates to their [family member’s] care. One relative said, “Yes, [staff]do and always kept me informed of any changes.” Staff worked well with external professionals such as district nurses and GPs which supported joined up care and helped ensure people received timely support. These approaches helped maintain continuity for people and supported safe and effective care.

The service had communication plans in place that described how staff should interact with people and how to support their communication needs, including the use of hearing aids glasses and preferred communication styles. However, this did not meet the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. The provider did not have a systematic process to identify record flag share and meet people’s information and communication needs in line with the standard. For example, the service did not consistently record whether people needed information in alternative formats or have processes in place to provide accessible formats when required. Staff awareness of the Accessible Information Standard was limited which meant the provider could not be assured they were meeting people’s communication needs consistently.

People and their relatives were listened to and involved in decisions about care. Staff encouraged people to share their views and checked regularly that support continued to meet their needs. Relatives told us they were kept updated when changes occurred and felt able to raise concerns or suggestions. Staff described involving people in everyday choices and said they adapted care when preferences changed which helped ensure people remained at the centre of decisions about their support. Improvements were needed to ensure people and their relatives were consistently involved in reviewing care plans when required, and the manager had plans in place to strengthen this collaboration.

People were able to access the care and support they needed and there were no reported barriers that prevented them from receiving services. Staff understood people’s individual needs and made adjustments where required so people could use the service safely. People were supported to continue activities that were important to them and to maintain contact with the community. These arrangements helped ensure people received fair and equal access to the support available.

People experienced positive outcomes and there was no evidence anyone was disadvantaged in the support they received. Staff understood people’s individual needs and provided care that reflected each person’s abilities, preferences and cultural background. Relatives told us their family members received consistent support and that staff adapted care when needs changed. Records showed people had access to healthcare services, activities and community involvement regardless of their level of need. These arrangements helped ensure people had fair and equal opportunities to achieve good outcomes.

People were supported to think about their future care and staff encouraged discussions about what was important to them as their needs changed. Staff worked with health professionals when decisions about future treatment or support were required. These arrangements helped ensure people’s wishes were understood and considered when planning ongoing care.