• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: The Willows

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

126 Beech Hill, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, RH16 3TT (01444) 453918

Provided and run by:
The Disabilities Trust

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

22 May 2018

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 22 May 2018 and was announced. This was because the service is a

small service and we needed to make sure people would be in when we arrived. It was also so that the provider had time to arrange for sufficient numbers of staff to be deployed on the day to facilitate the inspection without disrupting people's daily routines.

The Willows was last inspected in February 2016 and was rated Good.

The Willows is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The Willows accommodates four adults with learning disabilities and complex needs. The service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The service had 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.

The service had a positive culture that was person-centred, open and inclusive. There was a strong emphasis on putting people first. All relatives spoke highly regarding the staff and their attention to detail.

The service was well led. Staff were enthusiastic and keen to talk about their role. Staff were proud of the service and their work. They felt supported within their roles and held the management team in high regard. Recruitment practices were robust and staff received training appropriate to their role and the needs of the people living at the service.

The registered manager was aware of their legal responsibilities and kept up to date with current good practice. She was committed to raising awareness of people with autism. She was passionate about improving the quality of life for people with autism within the wider community by educating people about their specialist needs and the challenges people with autism face.

Staff put people at the centre of everything they did. People were involved in the service within their capabilities. People assisted with meal preparation and carried out some domestic chores with staff support.

Relatives told us that they were kept fully informed. People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives.

People had comprehensive plans of care and risk assessments. Care was individualised and person centred with a focus on independence, achieving goals and wishes. Medicines were managed safely and in people’s best interests.

7 December 2015

During a routine inspection

The Willows is registered to accommodate up to four people who require support with personal care. It specialises in supporting people who have autism. Autism is a lifelong, developmental disability that affects how a person communicates with and relates to other people, and how they experience the world around them. At the time of our inspection, there were four people living at the service all of whom had autism and a learning disability.

The property is a modern, detached house on a residential housing estate on the outskirts of Lindfield. People have their own bedrooms and shared use of the communal areas and garden.

This inspection took place on 7 December 2015 and the provider was given three days’ notice. This was to enable the provider to arrange for sufficient numbers of staff to be available to facilitate the inspection without disrupting the daily routines of the people who lived there.

At the time of the inspection the service did not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. The day-to-day management of the service was overseen by a manager who is referred to as the acting manager throughout this report. Following our inspection the acting manager became the registered manager.

People were supported by kind, caring staff that knew them well and understood the importance of supporting people to follow their daily routines. A relative told us “The care here is very good, they (the staff team) know [the person] very well; they know his routine and understand him, they really get it.”

People’s independence was promoted and they participated in a range of activities of their choice. A relative told us “(Person’s name) can make his own choices and they (the staff) encouragethis”. Information was available to people in a format that was accessible to them and was illustrated with pictures and symbols.

People could choose and were supported to prepare their own meal and drinks. A staff member told us “(Person’s name) likes to bake cakes and (person’s name) likes to make chocolate muffins”. They went on to say “We all sit down at the table to eat together”.

People were supported to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them. Relatives were kept informed of their loved one’s wellbeing and any changes in their needs. One relative told us “It’s very much a team effort, they include us in everything, we have a good relationship and work very closely with them. We feel like members of the team”.

People’s needs had been assessed and planned for. Plans took into account people’s preferences, likes and dislikes and were reviewed on a regular basis. Staff worked in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and associated legislation ensuring consent to care and treatment was obtained. People were supported to make their own decisions and where people lacked the capacity to do so, their relatives and relevant professionals were involved in making decisions in their best interest.

Medicines were ordered, administered, stored and disposed of safely by staff who were trained to do so. Referrals were made to relevant health care professionals when needed and each person had a health action plan in place.

Staff received the training and support they needed to undertake their role and were skilled in supporting people with autism. A relative told us “The staff team are very switched on. I don’t have any concerns about their skills or competencies”.

Staff had a good understanding of each person’s communication needs and of how some people communicated their feelings through their actions. They were able to recognise when a person was feeling anxious and took appropriate action to minimise or where possible remove the source of these anxieties. A relative told us “(Person’s name) is very settled at the moment, as settled as they’ve ever been. The staff team have a lot to do with that, they really understand what’s important to (person’s name) and go out of their way to make sure it happens”.

Staff knew what action to take if they suspected abuse had taken place and felt confident in raising concerns. Risks to people were identified and managed appropriately and people had personal emergency evacuation plans in place in the event of an emergency.

The service followed safe recruitment practices and staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s assessed needs, including spending one to one time with people.

The management of the service were open and transparent and a culture of continuous learning and improvement was promoted. The acting manager told us “I’m always thinking about what else we can do to improve services and I want the staff team to get involved too.” The provider had ensured there were robust processes in place for auditing and monitoring the quality of the service and complaints were responded to appropriately.

13 May 2014

During a routine inspection

The Willows is a community house supporting four adults with learning disabilities and complex needs.

One inspector carried out this inspection. The four people living at the home had complex needs and were not all able to tell us about their experiences. In order to get a better understanding we spoke with the relatives of three of the four people using the service, observed care practices and spoke with staff. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, caring, effective, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Relatives we spoke with told us they believed that the service provided for their relatives was safe and they were confident that any concerns they raised with the staff or managers would be listened to and addressed. We saw that risks people might face had been assessed and were reviewed regularly. Up to date guidance was in place with actions for staff to take to minimize the risks while enabling people to do what they wanted safely.

There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. While no one was subject to authorised deprivation of liberty at the time of this inspection we saw that the service communicated significant concerns to the Local Authority safeguarding team and notified the CQC of them. Involvement of the local safeguarding team meant that all concerns were investigated and people's safety was maintained.

Procedures for the safeguarding of vulnerable adults were robust. We saw that staff received annual training on the subject and those we spoke with told us that they would not hesitate to report suspected abuse or concerns of poor practice in order to protect people's safety.

Recruitment was carried out centrally by the provider and we saw that the processes were thorough and safe. While both staff and relatives of people using the service commented adversely on the recent rapid turnover of staff, the assistant manager informed us that this had now been addressed with the recruitment of additional permanent staff who were due to start work at the Willows very shortly.

There were quality assurance systems in place so that the managers and staff learnt from the outcome of service reviews and events such as incidents, comments and complaints.

Is the service effective?

Relatives told us that they were satisfied with the care provided and felt their relatives' needs were being met. One person using the service said 'It's good'. Evidence showed that staff received the appropriate support and training to provide effective care and treatment for people using the service who had complex needs and some of whom displayed challenging behaviours. It was clear from our observations and discussions with staff that they had a good understanding of peoples' needs, knew them well and were able to recognise early signs of change in behaviour or well-being and act appropriately.

We saw that people were enabled to make their own decisions and choices about their care and support where possible. However for people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions we saw that the service had effective consent procedures in place and meetings were held with the family and relevant professionals to decide what action was in the person's best interest.

One relative told us 'They understand and manage our relative's condition very well. They are as happy as they can be'. Another said 'They've worked hard with our relative. They now understand themselves'.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by caring and attentive staff. We saw support workers treated people with compassion, dignity and respect. They were friendly and patient in their interactions with them and gave suitable encouragement when providing support. They were understanding of people's needs and how these could be communicated and were aware of their preferences in the way they wished their care to be delivered.

Staff told us that they enjoyed caring for people, helping them to reach their potential and encouraging their independence.

Relatives' comments included 'the care is absolutely fantastic', 'caring is endemic in the management' and 'My relative's key worker is brilliant. They treat my relative normally and there is mutual respect'.

Is the service responsive?

Everyone living in the home had a person centred support plan which included information about how they wished to communicate, their needs and their preferences. We saw that the support plans were reviewed regularly with the involvement of relatives and other relevant professionals and staff responded positively to changes in people's needs and circumstances. Records confirmed that people received the care and support as described in their support plans.

We saw that people were given one to one support from staff in order to participate in a wide range of activities of their choice both in and outside the service and staff told us that these opportunities had increased after they obtained their own vehicle earlier in the year. People were also encouraged and supported to maintain close contact with their families through regular visits and telephone calls with the help of their key workers. Relatives we spoke with told us they had regular contact with the home and could also speak to staff or managers at any time. They said they were kept informed about any issues which affected their relative and one person said 'They keep us up to speed' and another 'We have so much communication all the time'.

Is the service well led?

The service had a quality assurance system and carried out monthly checks on a range of aspects of service provision. The provider organisation also carried out an external quality review of the standard of care on an annual basis and identified actions to be taken to improve the service. The records seen by us showed that not all these actions had been completed within the timescale agreed.

All stakeholders views were collected through the use of annual surveys. In addition meetings with minutes were held for staff and people using the service on a monthly basis. We looked at the feedback of the family questionnaire and the monthly meeting minutes and saw examples of where action had been taken to address the issues raised and improve the service provided.

Staff we spoke with told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and were well supported in their roles by the assistant manager and team senior. They described themselves as a good team of staff who worked well together.