You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 29 April 2016

The inspection took place on 5 April 2016 and was an unannounced inspection.

Willow Lodge Care Home provides accommodation and care for up to 32 older people, most of whom have a diagnosis of dementia. The home is purpose built over three floors. At the time of our visit there were 29 people living at the home.

The service has a registered manager. 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 spoke positively about the care they received. They told us that staff were kind and friendly and that they were able to participate in a wide range of activities and outings. During our visit we heard lots of laughter and observed that people and staff enjoyed good relationships.

People felt safe at the home. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and reviewed. Any accidents or incidents were recorded and reviewed in order to minimise the risk in future. Staff understood local safeguarding procedures. They were able to speak about the action they would take if they were concerned that someone was at risk of abuse. People received their medicines safely. The home was clean and there were systems in place to protect people from the risk and spread of infection.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff had received training and were supported by the management through regular supervision and appraisal. Staff were able to pursue additional training, such as in supporting people living with dementia which helped them to improve the care they provided to people. The provider was making improvements to the environment to make it more dementia friendly, such as by improving lighting.

People told us that staff treated them with respect. Staff understood how people’s capacity should be considered and had taken steps to ensure that people’s rights were protected in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We have made a recommendation about reviewing the use of locks on bedroom doors to ensure that people’s freedom of movement is not unnecessarily restricted.

People enjoyed the food and were offered a choice of meals. Staff were attentive to people’s needs and supported those who required assistance to eat or drink. People’s weight was monitored and prompt action taken if any concerns were identified.

People were involved in planning their care and were supported to be as independent as they were able. Where there were changes in people’s needs, prompt action was taken to ensure that they received appropriate support. This often included the involvement of healthcare professionals, such as the GP, district nurses or optician.

The registered manager had a system to monitor and review the quality of care delivered and was supported by the provider. People, their relatives and staff felt confident to raise issues or concerns with the registered manager. Where improvements had been identified prompt action had been taken.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 29 April 2016

The service was safe.

People said they felt safe. Staff had been trained in safeguarding so that they could recognise the signs of abuse and knew what action to take.

Risk assessments were in place and reviewed to help protect people from harm.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

People received their medicines safely.

The home was clean and there were clear systems in place to minimise the risk and spread of infection.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 29 April 2016

One aspect of the service was not effective.

Staff had received training to carry out their roles and received regular supervision and appraisal.

Staff understood how consent should be considered and supported people’s rights under the Mental Capacity Act. We found, however, that keypads on bedroom doors restricted some people’s freedom of movement.

People were offered a choice of food and drink and supported to maintain a healthy diet.

People had access to healthcare professionals to maintain good health.

The provider was making further improvements to the premises and looking at ways to make it more dementia friendly.

Caring

Good

Updated 29 April 2016

The service was caring.

People received person-centred care from staff who knew them well and cared about them.

People were involved in making decisions relating to their care.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 29 April 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans provided comprehensive, detailed information about people and guidance to staff.

An interesting and varied programme of activities and outings was available. People who spent time in their rooms received one to one time from activities staff.

People were able to share their experiences and were assured of a swift response to any concerns.

Well-led

Good

Updated 29 April 2016

The service was well-led.

The culture of the service was open and inclusive. People and staff felt able to share ideas or concerns with the management.

People and staff spoke highly of the registered manager and leadership team. Staff were clear on their responsibilities and told us they were listened to and valued.

The registered manager used a series of audits to monitor the delivery of care that people received and ensure that it was consistently of a good standard.