You are here

Archived: Willow House Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 7 April 2016

This was an announced inspection which took place on 22 February 2016. This was the first inspection since the provider had registered the service with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2013.

Willow House provides short term support for up to five adults who have a learning disability. People who have an additional physical disability or sensory impairment are also able to access Willow House. The service provides three single bedrooms and two self-contained flats. One of the flats is situated on the first floor. Specialist equipment such as tracking hoists and adapted bathing facilities are provided. At the time of this inspection there were four people using the service.

The provider had a registered manager in place as required by the conditions of their registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 registered manager was supported by an operations manager who was responsible for the day to day running of the service.

During this inspection we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act (HSCA) 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because improvements needed to be made to the way medicines were managed and recorded. The registered manager had also failed to take the necessary action to ensure the rights of people were upheld when they were unable to consent to their care in the service.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. They were able to tell us of the action they had taken to protect people who used the service from the risk of abuse. Staff told us they would have no hesitation in reporting poor practice of colleagues using the whistleblowing policy. They were confident their concerns would be taken seriously by the managers in the service.

Systems were in place to ensure staff were safely recruited. The staff rota was flexible to meet the individual needs of people who accessed the service. During the inspection we observed kind, caring and sensitive interactions between staff and people who used the service. Staff demonstrated a commitment to providing high quality personalised care for the individuals who accessed the service. People were also supported to be as independent as possible during their stay in the service.

Staff told us they received the training and supervision they needed to be able to carry out their roles effectively.

Care records we reviewed included information about the risks people might experience. Plans were in place to inform staff about the action they should take to manage the identified risks. The health needs of individuals were also recorded, including how staff should care for people if they experienced a seizure. Systems were in place to help ensure staff were aware of any changes to a person’s needs since their previous stay in the service.

Regular checks took place to ensure the safety of the environment and equipment used by staff. Although we had no concerns regarding the cleanliness of the service, we noted the provider had not completed an infection control audit since August 2013. The operations manager told us this would be introduced as soon as possible. We have made a recommendation regarding the prevention and control of infections in the service.

Staff we spoke with told us they enjoyed working in the service and felt valued by both the registered manager and operations manager. Staff felt able to raise any issues of concern or make suggestions to improve the service in supervision and staff meetings.

Staff told us they would always encourage people to choose healthy food options. However, they also recognised that sometimes people chose to eat less healthy meals during

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 7 April 2016

The service was not always safe.

Improvements needed to be made to the arrangements to ensure the safe administration of medicines.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults. They demonstrated a commitment to ensuring people were protected from the risk of abuse.

Recruitment procedures in the service should help protect people from the risk of unsuitable staff. We found staff rotas were flexible to meet the need of people admitted to the service.

People�s care records included information about any risks individuals might experience and the support strategies in place to manage these risks.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 7 April 2016

The service was not always effective.

Improvements needed to be made to the way people�s capacity to make decisions was assessed and recorded. The registered manager had not taken action to determine if DoLS applications were necessary to protect the rights of people who were unable to consent to their care in the service.

Staff told us they received the training and supervision they needed to be able to carry out their roles effectively.

People received the support they needed to ensure their health and nutritional needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

The service was caring.

We observed staff speaking with people in a kind, caring and respectful manner.

Staff demonstrated a commitment to providing high quality, person centred care. Staff promoted people to be as independent as they wished to be during their stay in the service.

Staff showed they had a good understanding of people�s needs and preferences.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

The service was responsive.

The operations manager tried to ensure access to the service was as flexible as possible to meet people�s needs.

Systems were in place to help ensure staff were aware of any changes to a person�s needs since their previous stay at the service.

Systems were in place to investigate and respond to any complaints people might make. Learning from complaints was shared with staff and used to improve the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 April 2016

The service was well-led.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission and was qualified to undertake the role. They were supported in the day to day running of the service by an operations manager.

Staff told us they enjoyed working in the service and felt well supported by their colleagues and managers.

Quality assurance systems in place were used to drive forward improvements in the service.