Willow Brook

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

When staff interacted with people they treated them with kindness and compassion. However, we found during mealtimes for example; staff had missed opportunities to engage and be attentive to people to ensure they would identify any immediate support people might require. Staff knew people well and were motivated to ensure their individual needs were met.

This service scored 70 (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 if they were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity.

Staff were motivated to promote people’s dignity, respect and privacy. They told us they made sure doors and curtains were closed when providing personal care. The manager told us they maintained confidentiality by ensuring doors and windows were closed when sensitive conversations were taking place. They also said they discussed confidentiality in team meetings, supervision and in ad hoc conversations. Staff had received dignity, respect and inclusion training. These caring qualities were also explored by the manager during recruitment interviews to ensure staff with the right values were recruited.

We received mixed feedback from professionals. They felt staff mostly treated people with kindness, compassion and dignity. The management team was aware some concerns had been raised in the past about some staff interactions and was working at improving the culture. Recent professional feedback indicated there may still be some improvements needed.

When staff interacted with people, most of the interactions we observed were positive, kind and caring. During one of our visits a person became unwell and we saw staff supporting them with dignity and respect. We also saw a person at a heightened state of anxiety being supported to manage their distress with consideration and patience.

People were not able to give us any feedback about being treated as an individual.

Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and were able describe what people enjoyed doing. Most staff commented on 1 person’s love of puzzles and how they were supported to complete these. Staff talked about people doing the things they liked such as watching TV, going to cafes, colouring and listening to music. Staff were able to describe what good person-centred care looked like and mentioned providing care unique to each person. One staff member commented, “It’s drawing up the plans around the person themselves, understand the person and how they communicate any wishes that they have, and any beliefs are captured… [One person] likes his coffee and helps to make them.’’ It was important to the manager that staff saw people as individuals rather than focusing on their diagnosis. They talked about people’s personal preferences in team meetings and supervision and told us this information was included in care plans. The manager also worked with people and carried out ad hoc checks so they could promptly identify and address any concerns.

The manager told us people used a variety of communication methods including, speech, Makaton signing, pictures and videos. They had also just completed ‘Talking mat’ training to further support people’s communication. There were pictures available to support people in choosing the meals they wanted, and we saw people received the food they chose. Staff supported people on a 1 to 1 basis and knew people well, including their likes and dislikes. We saw 2 people were served food in their preferred way. One person had their individual food items separated because staff knew the person did not like their food to be touching other foods.

An up-to-date person-centred care policy was in place to provide staff with information about providing individualised care. For 1 person who had received a health condition diagnosis, the manager had requested information in easy read format to support the person to have an awareness of their condition.

People were not able to give us any feedback about having independence, choice and control.

People received 1 to1 support and were supported to go out when they wanted to. Staff told us how they were supporting 1 person to go out more often. The manager described how 1 person’s independence was promoted by supporting them to make their own hot drink. The manager told us that advocates were involved when required to support people to make choices as independently as possible.

We observed there were limited activities offered to people, both people spent a lot of time in their bedrooms. We did observe people’s meals were presented in a way they preferred. However, choices were not always seen to be offered when the opportunity arose for example, we observed both people were given a drink without being asked what they wanted to drink or if they wanted any condiments during a mealtime observation. We observed limited opportunity for people to make choices about their daily lives. People’s rooms were personalised with photographs or wall art and stickers.

The manager told us they monitored staff interactions while working on the floor and on an ad hoc basis. Support plans reflected people’s preferences and choices. However, there was no support plan to inform staff how to support a person to make their own drink to ensure all staff would support then consistently to develop their independence. Apart from personal care people’s daily support notes did not show how people had been offered choices for example in relation to activities.

People were not able to give us any feedback about responding to people’s immediate needs.

Staff told us they had enough staff to respond to people’s immediate needs. Staff described how they identified when people were distressed so they could respond quickly to reassure them. They also told us they supported people promptly to change their clothing if people spilled food or drink to promote people’s dignity. The manager explained how they kept staff informed about people’s changing needs.

We observed the lunchtime experience for people. Staff had missed opportunities to interact with people to determine if they needed any immediate support during lunch time. Staff sat with people but did not initiate conversation or routinely interact with them during lunch time. When staff swapped over they did not always acknowledge people to give them an opportunity to indicate they required assistance. When staff did not interact or actively observe people eating they would not be able to respond to people’s immediate needs.

Most of the staff we spoke with felt morale was positive at present, but it could vary at times. One staff member told us, “I think morale goes up and down, it depends on who you ask, all staff in good spirits at the moment as the people are in good place.” Another staff member told us, “I’m only speaking for myself, but I am happy.” Staff enjoyed working at the service and felt it was a good place to work. The manager wanted staff to feel free to approach them with any concerns and would make themselves available when staff needed them. The manager confidently described the opportunities available to staff for personal and career development. They gave examples of how staff were being supported to develop their skill and confidence in their role. The manager told us they had regular supervision with their line manager.

The service provided supervisions and ongoing training to support staff. We reviewed supervision notes and noted opportunities for development were discussed. The manager informed us that annual appraisals for staff would be booked in for later in the year. The service had sent a stress indicator tool to staff to identify if any action was needed to improve staff wellbeing and planned to create an action plan when responses had been analysed.