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

Staff and leaders had developed positive relationships with people, which supported them to deliver person centred care. Care plans were holistic, and took people aspirations, goals and strengths into consideration. Family members told us they found staff to be caring and kind. We observed people to be relaxed in the company of the staff supporting them. Processes to support staff were in place, and opportunities to give feedback were plentiful. However, we identified some tensions between the staff team which the service told us they will work to improve.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relative’s we spoke with told us they found staff to be kind and caring. One relative gave an example of how caring they had seen staff be towards their loved one during a joint trip out. Another relative told us “A lot [of staff] seem genuinely fond of [relatives name], see it in their relationship.” Some relatives told us that most staff supporting their loved one did not have English as a first language, and this sometimes made natural conversation difficult, however said with time staff grew to know people and how best to communicate with them.

Staff spoke kindly and compassionately about the people they support. Staff knew people’s life histories and personal preferences thoroughly. We spoke with a variety of staff, and all felt passionate about wanting people to lead fulfilling and enriched lives. However, tensions between staff teams meant some staff felt their ability to provide high quality care was impacted. The registered manager told us they will work to rectify the difficulties amongst the staff team.

We did not receive feedback from partners in relation to this quality statement. However, our observations showed staff working positively with visiting healthcare professionals whilst we were at the service.

We observed staff to know people very well, and the atmosphere was homely and warm. People appeared relaxed in the company of the staff supporting them. We observed the manager to greet people and speak with kindness. For some staff, English was not their first language, and this hindered conversation. However, the service had sourced language lessons and additional support to improve this.

Relatives told us people’s individual needs and preferences were understood. A relative of a person living at the service told us “[relative] has no doubts that staff know exactly what she wants”.

Staff told us they understood people and knew their individual needs. Staff were able to tell us about people they supported, what made them happy and how they supported them to access the things they enjoyed. Staff were knowledgeable that some people liked to have a structured routine and they endeavoured to make this happen for them.

We observed staff to speak with people about their likes and dislikes. Where people had specific preferences, and it was relevant for us know before meeting the person, staff shared this information with us to ensure we did not distress them during the inspection process. We observed people to be supported to spend their time where they wanted, doing things they wanted to do.

Care plans contained information to inform staff about people’s needs and preferences including any cultural or religious needs. There was also information about people’s life history to help staff understand people’s past experiences and circumstances. People’s bedrooms were personalised where possible and safe to do so. This created a homely atmosphere and a place where people felt at ease.

We spoke with one person in their bedroom, and saw they had their own artwork displayed on their wall. Their bedroom had personal items within it, and they said they enjoyed watching their favourite programmes in their room. Relatives told us people were given choice and control over how they lived their lives without unnecessary restriction.

Staff we spoke with were able to explain how they offer people choice, and understood positive risk taking. One staff member explained to us how a person living with a food aversion will only eat certain foods, and they respect this. However, we also received feedback from some staff who felt the service was restrictive and did not offer people choice and control over their care. The registered manager assured us they would work with the staff team to ensure they understand some of the restrictions which people are subjected to, and the reasons for these individual decisions having been made.

We observed people to be offered choices, such as who they wanted in their bedrooms, what they wanted to do, and what they wanted to eat. We saw a person being supported by a staff member to do their own laundry. Another person had devised a schedule of ‘Housework’ with the help of staff. This encouraged people to develop their skills and independence.

People's care plans contained information about their strengths and how staff should support people to maintain these skills. Staff had found out people's likes and dislikes to make sure they were offered choices which reflected their preferences. Where people were not able to contribute to their care plan, their relatives or advocates had been involved.

Relatives told us staff knew their loved ones very well, and staff were able to react to their needs appropriately. One relative explained their family member is non-verbal, but staff understand what the person needs through body language.

Staff and leaders knew the best way to communicate with people, and were able to confidently pick up non-verbal cues. Staff could describe how people present when they are happy and content, as well as when they were upset or trying to communicate a need. This meant staff could pre-empt people’s needs when they were unable to communicate these verbally.

We observed staff responding to people’s needs. Staff were attentive and engaged with the people they were supporting. Staff we spoke with demonstrated in depth knowledge of the care people required, including their preferences and communication needs.

We received mixed feedback from staff in relation to the support they received from the service. Whilst some told us they felt well supported, others said they did not feel listened to when they raised concerns. Some staff who contacted us felt unable to approach the service directly for fear of repercussion. The registered manager told us they personally felt well supported by the provider and their internal quality teams.

The service had policies in place to support staff development and practice supervision. Staff received 1:1 supervision from their line manager on a monthly basis. Additional training was arranged for staff when requested or identified as a development need. The registered manager was aware that some staff members were unhappy, and assured us they would work to better understand the reasons for this.