CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Willows
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were identified and managed. Medicines, infection control, recruitment and accident monitoring were generally safe, although the medicines administration process could be improved.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home assessed people's needs before they moved in. Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with nutrition, healthcare, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people kindly and respectfully. They supported people's privacy, dignity, independence and ability to express their views.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's needs and preferences. People were supported with activities, outings, faith, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive and inclusive culture, involved people and relatives, and used audits to identify and resolve issues. There was no registered manager in post at the time, but a new manager had been recruited.
What inspectors found, January 2019
SeeAbility - The Willows was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staffing and medicines processes to improve.
The inspection took place on 30 November 2018 and was announced. Two inspectors spoke with one person, four staff members and three relatives. They observed care and checked care plans, recruitment records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, and had their health, nutrition and personal needs supported.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, take part in activities and maintain their faith. The home had a positive culture and systems for finding and fixing issues.
The rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection. There was no registered manager in post during this inspection, although a new manager had been recruited. Inspectors also identified that more staff would help and that medicines records could be handled more safely.
People felt safe
Relatives said they felt their loved ones were safe. Inspectors found safeguarding procedures, risk assessments and emergency plans were in place.
“People were protected by staff who were aware of safeguarding procedures.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff took time to talk with people and respected their privacy, dignity and choices.
“Staff were kind and respectful to people.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and care needs. Rooms could be personalised and activities were arranged around people's interests.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Good involvement
People, relatives and staff were asked for their views. Feedback led to more activities for one person.
“People, relatives and staff were involved in the running of the service.” from the report
Quality checks
The home regularly checked medicines, infection control and health and safety. Inspectors found identified issues were dealt with in a timely way.
“There were robust systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingSome relatives and staff felt one more member of staff would help. Inspectors found people's essential care needs were met, but there was less time for extra support.
“I think they struggle at times. They have trouble recruiting, but they manage to keep things ticking over but it doesn't give them time to do the extras.” from the report
Medicines recording process
needs fixingStaff signed medicines records at the end of the medicines round rather than when medicines were given. Inspectors suggested keeping each person's records with their medicines and signing them at the time.
“Staff signed people's MARs at the end of the medicines round rather than at the time of administering.” from the report
Managerial change
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A new manager had been recruited and was due to start the following month.
“There was no registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01How many staff are currently on duty, and has the staffing position improved since the inspection?
- 02How are medicines records now kept and signed when medicines are administered?
- 03Is the registered manager now in post and registered with the CQC?
- 04How are people's daily activities and outings planned around their individual preferences?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and giving feedback?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and the care provided to eight people living at the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 2019 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 The Willows
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 December 2010.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.