Willows Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The registered manager told us care and support needs were assessed and discussed with people and their relatives before they started using the service. A person-centred care package was then put in place and regularly reviewed. Staff had access to up-to-date information on people’s care and support needs in their care plans.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff knew people well including how they wished to be supported with food and drink. People were given options at mealtimes and were able to choose what they wanted to eat. Assessments were in place to help staff recognise the support people required, and staff had undergone training to recognise if people were choking and how they could intervene. Where required, the service worked with speech and language therapists (SALT) to ensure people were receiving the correct support with their food and nutrition. A relative told us, “Yes we do get some updates. I know [relative] has seen the SALT person recently and they provided feedback after that meeting. I asked for a report, and we talked it through.” Another relative told us, “I don’t think I have any concerns in this respect. I believe they monitor [relative’s] fluid and food intake, and I have seen them encourage [relative] to drink.” However, another relative told us, “They will put a jug of juice in [relative’s] room even though [relative] spends all day in the day room. I went to [relative’s] room recently and there was a sticker on the jug, and it showed that the juice was 2 days old. It should be changed twice a day. I reported it to the manager who said she tries her best. I don’t think that is satisfactory”. Another relative told us, “I do wish when they give [relative] a drink staff would push the table closer to [relative] so it is within reach.” The regional manager told us they had introduced a detailed daily walk around form for the registered manager to complete, which included checking people’s drinks and to ensure they are within reach and had the support from staff.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Staff had access to the information they needed to work with people and, where required, helped them safely transition between healthcare teams. The registered manager told us they had developed good links with the health professionals. Where appropriate, staff supported people to attend health appointments. Staff meetings, daily stand up meetings, 1:1 and group supervision sessions were all in place to ensure staff were provided with current information to work together to support people. A health professional told us, “Care staff appear to be caring and respectful towards individuals during our visits and where concerns have been raised the manager has acted on these and given us feedback.”

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People were supported to access healthcare professionals and services to reduce the risk of health deterioration and promote their independence. A relative told us, “The permanent staff are kind and attentive to people and know them well, but the agency staff don’t know [relative].” Another relative told us, “The care staff are very good and help where they can.” Staff attended regular meetings to ensure they had all the information they needed to support people and involve them with their health. Staff completed referrals to health professionals such as the GP, dietician, speech and language team and district nurses. People’s records contained information about any health conditions and referrals people might need to promote good health. Staff received training to support them to recognise early signs and symptoms of deteriorating health.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both people’s and clinical expectations. The registered manager told us they had several systems in place to help them monitor outcomes for people. This included asking people for their feedback through meetings, telephone calls and the completion of surveys on their care experience. Residents had monthly meetings which relatives were also able to attend. A relatives meeting had been arranged. Survey results were analysed for themes and trends to see where improvements were needed and could be made. The survey results and actions were displayed on a notice board in the service. For example, people asked for a programme of events to be displayed. The service now displayed activities on a notice board and weekly emails were sent to relatives with the upcoming schedules.

The registered manager told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s consent for care was sought and staff understood the requirement to seek consent for care from people. Staff supported people to make decisions for themselves and offered them choice during all interactions. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was working within the principles of MCA and had applied for assessments and renewals of DoLS when required.