The Willows

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Staff had attended appropriate training in safeguarding and people told us they felt safe and knew how to raise any concerns. Risk assessments were completed, and people told us they were involved in decisions about their care; however, this was not always recorded. Safe recruitment practices were followed, and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs however they had not always been deployed effectively. This was immediately addressed, and we received positive comments about the changes that had been made.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People felt safe. One person said, “Oh yes, I'm safe, they are there when I want them.” People knew who to speak with if they had any concerns with one person saying, “I’d tell who’s in charge, but I’ve got none.”

Staff were caring and spoke with people in a respectful and dignified manner. They had a good understanding of people’s needs and how to promote and maintain their safety, for example by using appropriate equipment to ensure people safely mobilised.

Systems and processes were in place to safeguard people from the risk of harm. Relevant policies and procedures were in place including safeguarding, raising concerns, freedom to speak up and mental capacity. Appropriate applications and authorisations were in place in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff had completed training in safeguarding and mental capacity and were aware of how to identify and report any concerns. Staff said they were confident the management team would take the appropriate action in relation to any concerns.

People, and the majority of relatives felt included in decisions about their care, including how risks were managed to support them to continue with day-to-day tasks safely. One person said, “I understand my condition, and staff have spoken to me about the risks I face, and I understand what I can and cannot do. It’s my choice though.” Another person said, “Yes, I understand about risks, staff listen to me.” However, people’s involvement was not always reflected in care records.

Processes were in place to assess and manage risks. Staff worked to mitigate any identified risks, and risk assessments were regularly reviewed to reflect people’s changing needs. Care plans contained information on the actions staff needed to take to keep people safe, including how to respond when people experienced distress.

Observation of staff practice was mainly positive. On day one staff were engaged in task centred work and were not always available to support people who were upset or on their own. We shared this with the registered manager and on day two staff were more positively engaged with people and had been deployed differently, meaning they had more time to spend interacting with people. Staff supported people with appropriate equipment to minimise risks and people who were not independently mobile had aids to use.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of risks and how to manage and mitigate them. They were aware of the need to report any incidents so they could be reviewed and assessed for learning.

Whilst there were enough staff, they had not always been effectively deployed to meet people’s needs as some staff left the home to work in the homecare element of the provider’s services. Care staff also supported in the kitchen which meant these staff were not present to provide care and support to people to ensure their needs were met, including activities. On the second visit to the home, the issue of staff leaving the home to work in the homecare element of the service and in the kitchen had been resolved. Rotas confirmed this to be the case. Activities were taking place, and the registered manager acknowledged this was an area for development.

Staff deployment on day one meant people’s needs were not always met in a timely manner. Feedback was shared and this had been improved on day two. Staff commented that improvements had been made to staff deployment which had benefited everyone. New procedures were working better and meant staff had time to engage people in meaningful activities and interaction. It was acknowledged this needed to be developed and sustained.

Safe recruitment practices were followed, including in relation to the recruitment of overseas staff. Staff were appropriately trained to meet people’s needs. A system of supervision and appraisal was in place however it needed to be formalised to ensure completion on a regular basis. Staff told us they felt well supported by the registered manager and nominated individual. Staff deployment was a concern on day one as there were not always enough staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner however this had been addressed on day two and needed to continue.

Staff deployment on day one meant people’s needs were not always met in a timely manner. Feedback was shared and this had been improved on day two. Staff commented that improvements had been made to staff deployment which had benefited everyone. New procedures were working better and meant staff had time to engage people in meaningful activities and interaction. The registered manager acknowledged this needed to be developed and sustained.