CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Willow Gardens Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found risk assessments, emergency evacuation plans, equipment checks and safeguarding procedures. Staffing levels were considered suitable, and medicines records were completed appropriately.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supervision. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and communication, and staff sought consent for everyday decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and visitors described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed respectful interactions and found that people were involved in choices about their daily lives and personal care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, interests and social histories. The home offered varied activities, supported relationships and had arrangements for complaints and end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear leadership structure, open communication and systems for checking quality. The home used feedback, audits and action plans to make improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Willow Gardens Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and audits.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, trained staff, safe medicines systems and appropriate infection control. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and everyday choices.
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Care plans recorded people's needs and preferences. Inspectors also found activities, complaint handling, end of life support and quality checks were in place.
The overall Good rating means the inspection found the service met the expected standards in the areas checked. The previous inspection was also rated Good.
Suitable staffing
Inspectors found staffing levels were based on the number of people living in the home and their individual needs. Staffing was increased when necessary.
“People's needs were met by suitable numbers of staff who had appropriate training.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and visitors spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people in a kind, patient and caring way.
“During the inspection we saw staff interacting with people in a kind, patient and caring way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, interests and social histories. People were involved in choices about when they got up, went to bed and received personal care.
“People had care plans in place which detailed their needs, preferences, interests and social histories.” from the report
Food and choice
People were offered choices at mealtimes, with alternatives available. Staff used patient and friendly support to help people eat and drink enough.
“People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered varied activities and opportunities to use facilities in the retirement village. It also had links with schools, other care homes and community groups.
“The activity programme is varied and engaging and a real family atmosphere exists.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The registered manager used audits, feedback and action plans to monitor care. Inspectors saw examples of identified issues being followed up.
“The registered manager had a quality assurance system in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you adjust staffing when a person's needs change?
- 02How do you check that medicines remain safely stored, administered and recorded?
- 03How will you support my relative's particular communication needs?
- 04Which activities would suit my relative's interests, abilities and religious or cultural preferences?
- 05How are relatives involved if a person's needs change or if end of life care is needed?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the inspector spoke with two people, six relatives, four staff and the registered manager, observed care and reviewed selected records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with mixed views about the meals.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 and 25 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also reviewed care plans, staff records and management records, attended meetings and observed medicines being given.
Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough staff, safe medicines processes, suitable training, respectful care and activities based on people's interests. Staff supported people to make choices and helped them access healthcare.
People's views about the food were mixed. The home had responded by asking for feedback and changing dishes where needed. This was the first inspection since the home was registered in March 2016, so there was no previous inspection rating to compare.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and robust recruitment checks. Medicines were administered by trained staff and stored safely.
“People's medicines were managed and administered safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences, gave them time and supported privacy, dignity and choice. Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions.
“People experienced positive and caring relationships with the staff who provided their care.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were planned from people's suggestions and included regular events, individual support and community outings across seven days.
“People were provided with a range of activities, which ran in the morning, afternoon and evenings, both in the service and in the community across seven days” from the report
Good management
The manager was visible and approachable. Regular audits, meetings and links with health professionals supported oversight and improvement.
“Processes were in place to audit, monitor and drive improvements to the quality of the service provided for people.” from the report
Mixed feedback about meals
minorSome people wanted the quality of the meals to improve. The home had identified this and was seeking feedback, holding tasting sessions and changing dishes where needed.
“People's feedback was mixed with regards to the quality of the meals; two people were positive; three felt it was alright and three would have liked to see improvement.” from the report
Call bell records
minorThe manager monitored call bell response times, but these checks were not documented. Inspectors found that 20 of 22 recorded responses took less than two minutes.
“Although these checks were not documented, they used them to review if call bells were being responded to in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the meals since inspectors recorded mixed feedback?
- 02How are call bell response times recorded and checked now?
- 03How are people affected by the eight outstanding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications?
- 04How many staff are currently working on each shift, and are any shifts being covered by existing staff?
- 05How are activities adapted for people who spend time in their bedrooms or are living with dementia?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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 Willow Gardens Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 March 2016.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.