The Willows

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People gave positive feedback about the staff that were caring for them. They described staff as lovely, brilliant and kind. One person told us, “They always have a laugh and make time for a chat.”

Staff were able to describe the actions they took to promote privacy and dignity such as closing doors and curtains, and they spoke about maintaining positive relationships with people. One staff member said “The best thing about my role is that we have good relationships with the people, we get attached with the residents. Everyone is on good terms.”

External healthcare professionals had noted improvements in the way staff interacted with people since the new manager had taken up the role. One professional described witnessing “Real positive interaction, kindness, respect and banter.”

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. To help determine if people had increased opportunities to participate in activities and meaningful interactions with staff. During the SOFI we observed a range of interactions between staff and residents with most of them either positive or neutral.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Work had taken place to ensure care plans contained person - centred information including what was important to people and what a good day looked like.

Staff knew the people they cared for and fostered good relationships with them. One relative told us, “They know which food and drink [person] likes and they know [person] likes to sit in their room or the quiet lounge. There is a carer that has a special relationship with them. [Person] likes them a great deal.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

There was a routine reliance on medication to manage behaviours of distress. Care plans did not include sufficient detail regarding known triggers or proactive strategies to reduce distress. This approach meant people may be drowsy and less alert, reducing their ability to stay independent, limiting their capacity to express choices, and placing control of their behaviour with staff rather than supporting them to manage their own needs.

People and relatives told us people could make their own decisions. One relative told us, “[Person] can make all their own choices and is never forced to do anything.”

People could choose whether they joined in with activities and work was being done to improve the activities available to them, however some people told us they decided to stay away from communal areas due to behaviours of distress displayed by other residents.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People felt staff were responsive to their needs. One person told us, “If I call for help, someone will come straightaway.” A relative said, “They respond quite quickly.” We saw call bells were responded to quickly during our visit.

Records showed referrals were made to other healthcare services when needed such as opticians, and close connections with the G.P. meant any concerns could be dealt with efficiently.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt well supported by the manager and provider. One staff member told us, “I like the management, they are polite. They listen to us and we work as team.” The provider and manager expressed a desire to ensure staff were well looked after. The provider told us, “I’ll ask if they are OK and I’ll make sure they have had lunch and a drink,”

Adjustments were made for staff who required flexible working such as shorter shifts and planning around university. Records from team meetings showed staff were given the opportunities to ask questions and a recent feedback questionnaire showed staff suggestions were taken on board. Staff also had access to regular supervisions.