CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Moti Willow
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staff understood safeguarding procedures, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines records were complete at the inspection, although earlier gaps had been identified and action taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were fully assessed and regularly reviewed. Staff were trained and supported, and the home worked with mental health, medical and other health services.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were personal, regularly reviewed and included people's routines, life histories and goals. People could take part in activities, maintain relationships and raise complaints or suggestions.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear focus on recovery, inclusivity and independence. Audits, feedback and an improvement plan were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and enabling care, with well-led practice improved to Good.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. One inspector spoke with three people and four staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, training information and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were supported to live independently, make choices and take positive risks safely.
Staff were described as caring, friendly and well trained. Medicines were managed safely, people's needs and risks were regularly reviewed, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
The overall rating stayed Good from the previous inspection. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Safe medicines support
People who could safely manage their own medicines were supported to do so. Staff checks and training were in place.
“People were supported to manage their own medicines. People had lockable storage in their room and staff undertook checks to monitor that people had taken the medicines as required.” from the report
Caring and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and responded to their needs in an individual way. People were treated with dignity and asked for consent before support was given.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly and respectful way. Staff responded to requests for support.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans included people's routines, life histories and personal goals. People were involved in creating and reviewing their plans.
“People had full involvement in the planning, creation and review of their support plans.” from the report
Focus on independence
The home supported people to make choices, develop daily living skills and take part in community activities without pressure to join in.
“The ethos of the service was promoting recovery, inclusivity and independence.” from the report
Earlier medicines recording gaps
minorInspectors said that gaps had previously been found in medicines administration records. They also said action had been taken and the records were fully completed at the inspection.
“Medicines administration records had been fully completed. Where gaps in records had been noted, action had been taken to improve future practice.” from the report
- 01How do you check that medicines records remain complete, especially where people manage some of their own medicines?
- 02How are people's risk assessments and support plans updated when their needs change?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty, and how do you provide management support outside normal working hours?
- 04What activities and community opportunities are currently available, and how do you support people who want to develop independent living skills?
- 05How are feedback, complaints and suggestions used in the current improvement plan?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, including both the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Moti Willow was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but leadership and care records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 03 April 2017. Two inspectors spoke with three people living at the home, staff, the manager and the provider. They reviewed two care plans, employment records and other documents, and observed how staff supported people.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People felt safe, staff understood their needs, medicines were managed safely, and people were supported with health care, activities, independence, privacy and dignity.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Care records did not always clearly describe people's risks, changing needs or the support staff should provide. The provider and manager knew about these problems and had an improvement plan, but some systems were still being developed.
The overall Good rating means the inspection found that the home was meeting the required standard in most areas at that time. It does not remove the need to check how the care planning and quality monitoring problems have been addressed.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given by trained staff whose competence was checked. Inspectors found that records and stock quantities matched, and people did not run out of medicines.
“People received their medicines from staff who were trained and their competency to administer medicines was regularly observed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw people appearing comfortable and relaxed, with their privacy and dignity respected.
“People were treated with respect and kindness, their privacy and dignity was promoted by staff.” from the report
Support for independence
People were involved in daily chores, cooking, managing finances and activities. They could pursue interests and use the community independently when they wished.
“People were encouraged to pursue hobbies and interests and they accessed the community independently when they wanted.” from the report
Relevant staff training
Permanent and regular agency staff received induction, training and supervision relevant to their roles.
“Staff received training relevant to their roles to help give them the skills required to meet people's needs effectively.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not fully record known risks, personal preferences or how staff should provide support. This could make it harder for every staff member to give consistent care.
“People's records did not consistently document how to support people's identified or changing needs.” from the report
Possible gap in managing behaviour
needs fixingOne identified behavioural risk was not carried through consistently into the assessments and care plan. Inspectors said this created a potential risk that not all staff would know how to manage and monitor it.
“This meant that it was a potential risk of not all the staff working at the home knew how to manage and monitor this person`s behaviour.” from the report
Feedback was not home-specific
minorThe provider's six-monthly surveys combined feedback from all its homes. This meant the manager did not have a clear overall picture of feedback about this home.
“This meant that the registered manager did not have an overall assessment of the quality of service they provided as the results were affected by other locations.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans been updated so they clearly record risks, preferences and the exact support each person needs?
- 02How do you make sure agency and permanent staff follow the same care plans and understand any changing mental health or behavioural risks?
- 03What happened with the planned mental capacity assessments and DoLS application mentioned in the report?
- 04Do you now collect and review feedback specifically about this home rather than combining it with other homes?
- 05How do you check that actions in the service improvement plan have been completed and remain effective?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with some findings compared with the previous inspections in January and February 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 May 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Moti Willow
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 February 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.