Creative Support - Willowtree House

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People received responsive, personalised care and support that met their needs and reflected their preferences. One relative described how a person had achieved their goal of maintaining a healthy weight, they said, “[Name] helps the manger to cook, plan meals and look at healthy eating so they can lose weight.” People discussed their care and aspirations with their key workers to develop their own care and support plans with support from staff and these were reviewed and updated regularly, when people achieved goals and when their needs or aspirations changed.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People told us about how well they got on with the staff and other ‘house mates’, and how disagreements and differences within the household were thoughtfully addressed to resolve conflicts. Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure that typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against such as accessing health screening and finding volunteer work that matched their interests.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Not all support plans and records were recorded in different ways in line with people’s requirements for meaningful communication and decision-making. We brought this to the attention of the manager who implemented easy read hospital passports and started to develop a photo communications book for one person that was non-verbal. The provider met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People told us they felt free to raise any issues with their keyworker, the registered manager or the provider, and to their social worker or CQC if they felt they weren’t being listened to. Staff took time with people who were non-verbal to establish whether they were happy with their care and made changes to their care where they showed they were unhappy.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff understood the needs of autistic people and people with a learning disability and worked hard to ensure that typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. Staff advocated for people accessing healthcare and social activities. The provider had a clear ethos for the service based on human rights, anti-discrimination and equity principles, and staff and people who used the service understood these.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Some people and their relatives did not want to discuss end of life planning. Where this was the case, the provider had documented the decision and had established what steps would be taken if there was an emergency. The provider had made plans to revisit the subject in the future.