The Willows Nursing 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

People's needs and choices were assessed and planned for. The staff had a good oversight of people's needs and how to care for them. Care plans were person centred. However, we found the provider had not always recorded planned care for all of people's needs or made sure care plans reflected changing needs. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to ensure these were reviewed and updated. We found staff had good knowledge and people's needs were being met. People were supported to stay healthy and see other medical professionals when needed. People had consented to their care and treatment. We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

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 told us they had been involved in assessments and their needs and wishes were respected.

Staff knew people well and were able to tell us about their individual care needs.

The provider carried out assessments of people's needs and planned their care. Most care records were detailed and personalised. However, we found that in some cases not all needs had been thoroughly assessed. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to look at where there were gaps in records. There was no indication people's needs were not being met. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and people told us they received personalised care and support. However, some records needed to be clearer.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People told us they were able to see a doctor and other healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff knew about people's healthcare conditions and what to do if they found people were unwell.

People's healthcare needs had been assessed and planned for. Staff monitored their health and wellbeing. We saw staff had taken appropriate action when they identified people were unwell or their health needs had changed.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

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 make 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 Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People told us they were offered choices and able to consent to their care and treatment. They said their choices were respected.

Staff had undertaken training about the MCA and understood the principles of this and how to apply these when caring for people.

The provider had followed the MCA. They had assessed people's capacity and applied for DoLS when needed. They had recorded people's consent. The provider monitored when DoLS needed renewing and made sure conditions with these were monitored and met. There was evidence that people's legal representatives and family members were involved in best interest decisions for people who lacked the mental capacity to make these decisions.