Creative Support - Willowtree House

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe environments. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. One member of staff told us, “We discuss incidents and how we report them, and managers support us with actions and advice to improve care.” Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. For example, staff identified why people became distressed or an incident had occurred, they explored what could be changed to prevent further occurrences. The manager used all feedback to learn from incidents, complaints and people's feedback to learn and improve the service.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners make sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People had care and support plans in place for other services to understand people’s individual needs, the registered manager was updating these to include more detail.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Where restrictive practice was being used, they were legally justified, proportionate, necessary and as a last resort. There was a clear commitment to reducing them, for example, reviewing equipment used to support people in road safety. All restrictive practices were recorded in peoples Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. People's risk assessments carried out regularly or as needs changed and discussed with them where possible. Staff understood there were times when people became distressed and took steps to understand why a person was distressed and what support they needed to express their emotions. Staff knew people well and used distraction techniques to divert people to places or activities that helped them feel safe. Staff spoke to and about people at times of distress in a respectful way. A person told us they were involved in their risk assessments they said, “I have been looked after properly here and I have no reason to do anything risky.” Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People had been consulted about the environment to ensure adaptations and reasonable adjustments could be made to meet their individual needs. People showed us their bedrooms that had been decorated to reflect their individual tastes and interests. A person told us, “I love my room, it’s how I like it and it’s private.” Each person’s individual sensory needs had been assessed and considered, so the environment could be adapted. The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure regular safety checks were carried out. For example, a person told us, “They do fire practices, where all people go outside and wait to be accounted for.”

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. For example, staffing was increased at night to accommodate people’s needs during periods of ill health. People told us they had good relationships with the staff. We observed interactions between people and staff where people appeared to be in control of their day and relaxed. Staff had undertaken training in how to support autistic people and how to support people with a learning disability, their competency was then assessed to ensure they had the skills to support each individual person. Staff told us they felt supported and, “We do training on-line with a quiz, on [video link] and in person in a classroom in Leicester.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. There were systems in place to oversee the cleanliness of the home.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff explained to people what their medicines were for and supported people to understand changes in their medicines. Care plans clearly stated what support they needed, particularly where there were difficulties in communicating.