Willow Brook

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Processes for listening to; and involving people, needed to improve to make sure everyone had the information they needed and felt they had opportunities to share their views. Staff told us how they treated people equally and without discrimination. Care plans and risk assessments had improved since the last inspection and were more person centred. People did not always have access to opticians and dentists.

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.

People were not able to give us any feedback about person-centred care.

The manager told us they ensured care plans contained comprehensive information about people’s needs by reviewing and updating records where required every month. They told us people were not involved in these reviews, but they tried to gain people’s views in conversation over a cup of tea. The manager told us, “I have a manager’s oversight tool that tracks all of the monthly updates to support plans and risk assessments. They told us they observed staff spending time with people and listening to their views and wishes. They told us care plans and risk assessments had improved since the last inspection and were more person centred.

We observed staff speaking to people in a person-centred way. Staff knew people and provided support in line with people’s support plans. One person’s support plan stated they liked having photos taken with staff members. We observed the person indicating they wanted a photograph taken. A staff member went to get the camera and a photograph was taken. This made the person happy. We observed staff redirecting a person in line with their support plans when they became anxious.

People were not able to give us any feedback about their care provision, integration and continuity.

Staff told us people had access to health professionals and staff supported people to health appointments as required. The manager told us people had mental and physical health diagnoses and staff received training to support people with these needs. One person’s family member wanted to be kept informed of their loved one’s care and staff included them as needed. The manager said, “We share information and support people to the best of our abilities, reviewing where gaps are and closing them.”

Professionals felt the care provision had improved. They told us, the service was becoming more responsive to people’s needs and responding sooner to concerns raised. They also felt staff have adapted well to changes and were working hard to make improvements.

The manager had worked well with the local authority, safeguarding team and GP to make improvements to the service following the last inspection. This joined up working improved the quality of life for people. The team worked with health and social care providers to support people as needed to access specialist health appointments. There were systems and processes in place to review and update support plans when professional advice changed, or people developed new medical conditions.

People were not able to give us any feedback about providing information.

Staff knew how to communicate with people using different communication methods including Makaton, use of electronic devices, social stories and providing easy read information. People were provided with accessible information. The manager said, “We used a lot of the Advocacy agencies’ easy read information, for example, supporting people to hospital.” They talked about how to communicate with the people they currently support. Although the manager talked about different communication methods used with people, during our on-site visits we only observed people being verbally spoken with. We did see pictures used for menu planning.

All organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow Accessible Information Standard (AIS) The AIS tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, get information in a way they can understand it. We found that the provider was following the AIS ensuring people’s communication needs were known and recorded. We saw pictures used to support people to make their meal choices. Communication passports were in place to guide staff how to communicate with people.

People were not able to give us any feedback about being listened to and being involved in their care.

The manager told us they were still developing the service user surveys. They felt people’s different communication styles needed to be taken into account when developing the survey. They told us; ‘‘In every interaction they have they are able to give that feedback, for example when we give food, and they refuse and choose something else.” The manager told us family could give feedback at any time however this was not requested. The manager told us easy read versions of the complaints policy was available for people.

The provider had a complaints policy and process to manage any complaints. A record of complaints received was kept by the registered manager which included actions taken. Formal processes were not in place to seek feedback from people appropriate to their needs. There was no record of people’s involvement in reviewing their care and support needs. The lack of records which evidenced people’s involvement meant we could not be assured people were listened to and involved. Systems and processes were not always in place to ensure relatives and professionals would be providing feedback about the service.

People were not able to give us any feedback about equity in access.

The manager was aware of the support people needed to access services. This could be services such as GP’s or hospital appointments. They told us, “We are trying to resource an optician that comes on site, we still need to do this.” The manager told us 1 person did not have access to a dentist, they told us, “We made a referral in December 2023 for specialist dentists.” Following our site visit the person saw a dentist. The manager told us, following the appointment, a best interest meeting was now required as a result of the visit. The manager knew when to involve an advocate to support people.

We spoke with professionals about equity in access. They told us they were kept up to date with people’s changing needs and the provider attended meetings as needed to ensure people had access to appropriate medical professionals. They felt managers were demonstrating a commitment to improve outcomes for people. However, some improvement was needed to ensure the use of the MCA to promote each individuals’ legal rights.

Records showed people had good access to most primary care services as required; this had improved since our last inspection.

People were not able to give us any feedback about equity in access.

Staff received inclusion and diversity training and told us how they treated people equally and without discrimination. One staff member told us, “There is no discrimination, there are equal opportunities and if there was discrimination it would be reported.” The manager told us people’s cultural needs, religion, faith and pronouns were included as part of their assessment. During assessment people’s protected characteristics were considered. The manager told us they considered people’s age, disability, race and gender when planning people’s care.

The provider had a policy named ‘gender related care’ which aimed to ensure staff were sensitive to gender issues when providing personal care to people. We saw one person’s preference was for female staff to support them with personal care. This preference was respected by the provider. We spoke to the manager about equality and diversity, they told us, they were looking at nominating a staff member to lead on ensuring practice met current national guidance. During our assessment, they implemented an ‘equality and diversity’ folder. They also had a staff volunteer to take on this role. The manager shared with us a new supervision form template which included, freedom to speak up, equality, diversity and inclusion and respect and dignity as topics for discussion.

We did not receive any concerns regarding this quality statement during our assessment.

The manager was aware of the need to consider end of life care for people and had put plans in place to involve people’s commissioning teams in this planning. The manager told us, “[deputy managers name] chased 1 person’s care team to see if there was anything [regarding end-of-life care]. Now we will create one. We will do a mental capacity assessment and the best interest.” The deputy manager was aware of the benefits of having end of life plans in place to provide staff with information on how to ensure people’s preferences and wishes were respected at the end of their lives.

At the time of this assessment, nobody was receiving end-of-life care. There were processes in place to monitor 1 person’s diagnosis of dementia. The manager had promoted the need for conversations to start regarding end-of-life care planning.