CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Willows Residential Home (Hinckley)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, up-to-date risk assessments and safe medicines management. The home had safeguarding procedures and had acted on learning after an increase in falls.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed and reviewed. Staff received training and support, and people were helped with food, drink, healthcare and oral health.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about the home. Inspectors saw staff being kind, caring, friendly and attentive, and found that people's views and personal beliefs were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and adapted to people's needs. The home supported communication needs, offered varied activities and had a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care. Inspectors found clear staff responsibilities, open leadership and systems for improving quality and safety.
What inspectors found, February 2020
The Willows Residential Home (Hinckley) was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. Inspectors visited on 13 and 18 November 2019. They spoke with people using the home, care staff and the manager. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and management information.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training and risk assessments. People were treated with kindness and respect, and staff knew their needs and preferences.
The home had activities, a complaints process and systems to check the quality of care. The Safe rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The overall rating remained Good, although the provider had changed since the previous rating.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed by staff who had received training and whose competence had been checked.
“Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and were observed treating them with kindness and attention. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“Our observations showed staff were kind, caring, friendly and attentive.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's abilities, preferences and personal beliefs. The home made practical changes so people could continue activities and relationships that mattered to them.
“Care plans provided staff with descriptions of people's abilities and how they should provide support in line with people's preferences and in a manner which promoted their independence.” from the report
Learning from falls
The manager investigated an increase in falls and arranged extra training. Inspectors were told that falls reduced afterwards.
“As a result, additional falls training was provided to all staff by the local authority which led to a falls fifty percent reduction in falls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's risks, including falls, mobility, hydration, nutrition and skin care?
- 02How will you make sure my relative receives medicines safely and as prescribed?
- 03What activities would suit my relative's interests, abilities and communication needs?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in planning and reviewing their care?
- 05How do you use complaints, falls and other incidents to make improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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
The Willows Residential Home (Hinckley): Rated Good overall, but inspectors found risks were not always managed safely and staffing levels needed review.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 April 2017. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home remained Good overall, as it had been at the previous inspection in February 2015. People were generally treated kindly, supported to make choices and given care that reflected their preferences. Staff training, food, healthcare support, activities and management were also rated Good.
Safe care was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that advice about one person's choking risk was not always followed, guidance for another person's distress was missing, and most people and relatives felt there were not enough staff. Medicines were generally given safely, but allergies were not always recorded.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated gently and with respect. Staff listened, protected privacy and dignity, and gave people time when they needed it.
“We saw that when staff spoke with people they did so in a gentle and caring manner.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff received induction, ongoing training and guidance. Their competence was checked for medicines and they were supported by managers.
“People were supported by staff who had the required skills and knowledge to provide good care and support to people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and important personal details. Staff understood these preferences and adapted their support.
“We saw that people's care plans were centred on them as individuals and contained information about their likes, dislikes and things that mattered to them.” from the report
Active oversight
The manager and provider carried out checks on care records, medicines, accidents, incidents and the building. They took action where improvements were needed.
“The registered manager and provider carried out quality checks of the service to make sure the care offered to people was of a high standard.” from the report
Risk guidance was not always followed
seriousAdvice about a person's diet to reduce choking risk was not consistently followed, and care records contained conflicting information. Guidance was also missing for supporting another person during distress before considering medicine.
“We saw that this advice was not being consistently followed when we visited.” from the report
Staffing levels were questioned
needs fixingMost people and relatives said there were not enough staff. Inspectors saw people waiting and spending time without staff interaction, although call bells and requests for help were answered without undue delay.
“Most of the people we spoke with and two relatives did not feel there were a suitable number of staff available.” from the report
Some records needed improvement
minorAllergies were not always recorded in care and medicines records. Records did not always show how people or their representatives had taken part in care reviews.
“We saw that reviews of people's care occurred so that staff had up to date guidance about people's care requirements and preferences.” from the report
Confidential records left unattended
minorSome confidential care records were left in a communal area. Staff moved them to secure storage when inspectors raised this.
“We did see that some people's confidential care records were left unattended in a communal area.” from the report
- 01What staffing numbers are now in place, and what did the provider's staffing tool show when it was completed?
- 02How do you make sure changes to a person's diet or other risks are shared with every staff member and followed?
- 03What guidance is now in place for supporting people who become distressed before medicine is considered?
- 04How do you check that allergies are recorded accurately in both care and medicines records?
- 05How are people and their representatives' involvement in care plan reviews recorded?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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 The Willows Residential Home (Hinckley)
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Willows Residential Home (Hinckley) →
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Willows Residential Home (Hinckley) →
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 October 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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.