CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Willow Tree Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were not always protected from infection, and some risks and care plans were not fully recorded. Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care during the visit, and people were safeguarded from abuse.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection, although people and relatives gave positive feedback about staff being kind and caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks were not always completed or scored correctly, and identified actions were not always taken promptly. Inspectors also found a positive and open culture and said relatives and staff could approach managers.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Willow Tree Nursing Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found infection control and quality checks were not consistently effective, although people received kind care.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 November 2023. Two inspectors and a specialist nurse adviser spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and other records.
The home was not always clean, and staff did not always follow infection control practices. Some risks had not been fully assessed, and some care plans needed more detail. Staff said they were sometimes rushed, although inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care during the visit.
The home’s checks on care quality were not always completed or scored correctly. Actions identified through audits were not always taken promptly. People were protected from abuse, medicines were generally managed safely, and people and relatives gave positive feedback about the kindness of staff and the openness of managers.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Safe changed to Requires Improvement, while Well-led remained Requires Improvement. The other three question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection because they were not reviewed this time.
Safeguarding
Safeguarding concerns were reported, investigated and referred to the relevant organisations. Staff understood their responsibilities and felt able to report concerns.
“Safeguarding concerns were reported and referred to the local authority and the CQC. Concerns were investigated and actions taken to minimise future risks to people.” from the report
Enough staff for safe care
Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care during the visit. Relatives also said staff were usually available, although some staff wanted more time with people.
“During the inspection there were enough staff to provide safe care.” from the report
Kind and open culture
People, relatives and staff described the culture and care positively. Relatives said managers were approachable and kept them informed when problems occurred.
“There was a positive and open culture which helped achieve good outcomes for people.” from the report
Support with eating
Relatives described food and presentation helping some people eat and gain weight.
“Relatives of some people told us how the quality of the food had impacted positively on their loved ones' health.” from the report
Infection control
seriousStaff did not consistently follow safe infection control practices. Some areas and equipment were not visibly clean, and unpleasant odours raised concerns about cleanliness.
“People were not always protected from the risk of infection as staff were not consistently following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
needs fixingSome risks had not been assessed and some management plans lacked detail. One person’s catheter had no risk assessment or care plan until this was addressed during the inspection.
“Overall, the provider assessed risks to ensure people were safe and staff took action to mitigate identified risks. However, we identified some areas of risk had not been assessed and some risk management plans required greater detail.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingSome audits were incomplete or scored incorrectly. Problems identified in infection control audits had not been dealt with promptly, including issues that had been seen previously.
“Where audits had identified areas for improvement, actions had not always been taken in a timely way.” from the report
Staff feeling rushed
needs fixingAlthough inspectors found enough staff for safe care, some staff said they were stretched and had too little time for social support beyond physical care.
“However, some staff told us they were rushed and wanted more time to spend with people beyond providing physical care.” from the report
Mental capacity decision
needs fixingA mental capacity assessment had not been completed for one decision about restricting a person’s clothing. The provider was asked to review this and follow the Mental Capacity Act principles.
“A mental capacity assessment had not been carried out for one person which related to a decision to restrict the type of clothing they wore.” from the report
- 01What specific cleaning and infection control improvements have been made since the inspection, including for crash mats, bed bumpers and bedrooms?
- 02How do you make sure every person’s risks, including catheter care and distress or anxiety, have a detailed and up-to-date care plan?
- 03What has changed in the audit system so that checks are completed, scored correctly and followed by timely action?
- 04How many staff are normally on duty, and how do you make sure staff have time to talk with people as well as provide physical care?
- 05Has the clothing decision been reviewed through a mental capacity and best-interests process?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 2023 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, March 2022
Willow Tree Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; infection controls were generally in place, but visiting and vaccination checks were not always handled correctly.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 31 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The home was being considered as a setting for people discharged from hospital with COVID-19.
Inspectors found that people in the main part of the home could receive visitors under government guidance. However, visiting was not being facilitated in the separate isolation unit for people who had not tested positive for COVID-19. Checks that visiting professionals were vaccinated were also not always completed in that unit.
The inspectors were assured about testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing, admissions, cleanliness and managing outbreaks. The provider said improvements would be made after the inspection. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had good infection prevention and control arrangements overall.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.” from the report
PPE and cleanliness
Inspectors found that PPE was being used safely and that the home was promoting safety through its layout and hygiene practices.
“We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
COVID-19 controls
Inspectors were assured that the home was carrying out testing, following social distancing rules and managing admissions safely.
“We were assured the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Visiting in the isolation unit
needs fixingPeople in the isolation unit who had not tested positive for COVID-19 were not allowed visitors, including essential care givers, in line with the guidance at the time.
“The provider was not facilitating visits for people living in the isolation unit of the home in accordance with the current government guidance.” from the report
Vaccination checks
needs fixingThe home was not always checking that non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19 as required.
“The service was not always meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
- 01Can you explain what visiting arrangements now apply in the separate isolation unit?
- 02How do you make sure essential care givers can visit when guidance allows this?
- 03How do you check that non-exempt staff and visiting professionals are fully vaccinated or have an exemption?
- 04How do you check that COVID-19 infection-control and visiting procedures are being followed in every part of the home?
- 05What staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 are you experiencing now, and how are they affecting care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2022 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 Tree Nursing Home
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 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 Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 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.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.