CQC report explained · a nursing 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 avoidable harm, and inspectors found enough staff to support people. They noted that one risk assessment was missing, one movement sensor had briefly not worked, and records for some topical creams had been inconsistent, but these issues were addressed or being addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with eating, drinking and healthcare. Inspectors found that some new mental capacity assessment forms were confusing and that staff needed further training.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were friendly, caring and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care, and staff supported privacy, dignity and spiritual wellbeing.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and activities were varied. Inspectors found that some care plans had less individual detail than others and that daily records, including repositioning charts, were not always complete.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management. The home had regular audits, meetings, surveys and action plans to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, May 2018
The Willows rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some records and care plans needing improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 10 and 12 April 2018. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, daily records and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, kind care and a wide range of activities. They also found that complaints were handled properly and that managers checked the quality of care.
Some records were not always complete. Care plans did not always give enough detail about repositioning people to protect their skin. There were also some concerns about variable food and agency staff not always knowing people as well as regular staff. The manager said these issues would be addressed, and some changes were made during the inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and respectfully. Staff knew people well and talked about their interests and what mattered to them.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff who were friendly and caring in their approach.” from the report
Activities and individual interests
People could choose from activities in the home and the community. Support included music therapy, reflexology, trips out and one-to-one activities.
“There were two activities coordinators and people were provided with opportunities to take part in a varied activity programme within the home and in the community.” from the report
Strong quality checks
Managers reviewed incidents, complaints, weight loss and other areas. People and relatives were asked for their views, with actions recorded in response.
“The provider had a robust quality assurance process in place.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome daily records and charts were not fully completed, especially records of repositioning during the night. This could make it harder to confirm what care had been given.
“However we found that there were occasional gaps in the care records and that charts were not always fully completed.” from the report
Care plans needed more detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not clearly explain how often or how people should be repositioned to help prevent skin damage. The manager said this would be addressed.
“We noted that care plans relating to people's skin integrity could benefit from further details specifically where people required support with positional changes.” from the report
Agency staff knowledge
needs fixingThe home used agency staff at times to cover absences. One comment suggested that agency staff did not always know people as well as regular staff.
“We did receive a comment that agency staff were not always as knowledgeable as regular staff.” from the report
Food could vary
minorPeople were generally satisfied with the food, but some comments said its quality or standard could be variable.
“Overall people were satisfied with the food available although some comments received suggested that the food could be variable.” from the report
One missing risk assessment
needs fixingInspectors found that one person who displayed behaviour others might find challenging did not have a specific risk assessment. Staff were managing the risk, and the manager said this would be addressed.
“Whilst staff were clearly aware of this and took action to manage the risk, there was no specific risk assessment in place” from the report
- 01How do you now check that records of repositioning, mattress checks and other daily care are complete?
- 02What changes have been made to care plans about repositioning and protecting people's skin?
- 03How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's needs, preferences and risks before working with them?
- 04What has been done to make the standard of food more consistent?
- 05How are staff being trained to complete clear, decision-specific mental capacity assessments?
This was a comprehensive inspection of all five areas; the previous overall rating was Good, while the Responsive rating had improved from Requires Improvement to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 2018 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.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 November 2011.
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 Cheshire East
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 £1,260 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.