You are here

The Willows Residential Home (Hinckley) Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 13 November 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

The Willows is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 40 people. At the time of the inspection 27 people were using the service. Accommodation is provided over the ground and first floor with ensuite bedrooms and communal facilities.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

All the people and relatives we spoke with commended the home. People felt safe and well cared for. People's preferences were respected, and staff were sensitive and attentive to people's needs. Staff were seen to be kind, caring and friendly and it was clear staff knew people and their relatives well.

There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to ensure people's needs were met.

Recruitment practices were safe and staff received the training they required for their role.

Risks to people's health, safety and well-being were assessed and care plans were in place to ensure risks were mitigated as much as possible.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to safeguard people and the service had robust procedures in place.

People's care plans contained personalised information detailing how people wanted their care to be delivered.

Staff were keen to ensure people's rights were respected including those related to ethnicity.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicine management practices were safe.

People were supported to eat and drink enough. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and access healthcare services when required.

The service was provided in a homely and clean environment.

Consideration was given to providing a variety of leisure and social activities for people to enjoy.

Quality assurance systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 27th October 2018). Since this rating was awarded the registered provider of the service has changed. We have used the previous rating to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 13 April 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection visit took place on 13 April 2017 and was unannounced.

The Willows Residential Home (Hinckley) is a care home that provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to 40 people, some of whom were living with dementia when we visited. At the time of our inspection 31 people were using the service. At the last inspection on 17 February 2015, the service was rated good. At this inspection, we found the service remained good.

People received care and support that was not consistently safe. People felt safe but risks to their health and well-being were not always assessed and guidance was not always followed. Staff knew their responsibilities to protect people from abuse. The provider had checks in place to support people to remain safe from the environment and the equipment they used. Although people received the care and support when they requested it, most people and their relatives told us that staffing numbers were not suitable. We saw that people sometimes spent periods of time without staff checking on their well-being. We saw that staff were recruited safely and the provider had recently employed six new staff members following their own processes.

People received their medicines when they required them and in a safe manner. Staff received training and guidance to make sure they remained competent to handle people’s medicines.

People continued to receive effective care from staff. Staff received guidance, training and support so that they had the necessary knowledge and skills to provide good care to people. People were complimentary about the food and drink offered to them and they were supported to maintain their health.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service provided guidance in this practice.

Staff knew the people they supported and offered care in kind and compassionate ways. People’s dignity was maintained and staff gave people the time they needed when speaking with them. People were involved in decisions about their care and extra support was available should this be required. People were supported to maintain their independence so that they did not lose their skills.

People received care based on their preferences and things that mattered to them. Their care plans were focused on them and contained guidance for staff. People’s or their representative’s contribution to the review of their care plan was not always documented.

People knew how to make a complaint and the provider took the appropriate action when one was received.

The service continued to be well-led. People, their relatives and staff had opportunities to give suggestions about how the service could improve. The registered manager listened to suggestions and took action where required. Staff felt supported and received good support. The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities. This included the carrying out of quality checks of the service to drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 17 February 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected the service on 17 February 2015. The inspection was unannounced.

The Willows provides residential and respite care for up to 40 older people. At the time of our inspection 30 people were using the service. Accommodation is on two floors. Bedrooms are ensuite. Each floor has communal lounges and dining areas. The home has a sensory garden that people can use.

The home had a manager who had applied to be registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the time of our inspection the manager’s application was under consideration by CQC.

People who used the service and relatives told us it was a safe home. Staff we spoke with knew how to keep people safe. Staff knew how to identify signs of abuse and how to report it. They were confident that any concerns they raised with the managers or senior staff would be taken seriously and investigated. Staff also knew how they could raise concerns about people’s safety and welfare with the local authority and the Care Quality Commission.

People’s plans of care included risk assessments of activities associated with their support routines and risks associated with their limited mobility. The use of mobility equipment had been risk assessed to ensure that staff used the equipment safely. Other risk assessments included guidance about how to support people with personal care.

Staffing levels were based on people’s dependency levels. This meant that more staff could be on duty if people’s needs increased. The provider had effective recruitment procedures. The recruitment procedures had ensured as far as possible that only people suited to work at the service were recruited.

People received their medicines when they needed them. Only staff trained to manage medicines gave people their medicines. The provider had arrangements for the safe management of medicines.

People’s plans of care were individualised and contained information about people’s assessed needs and how they wanted their needs to be met. The plans included people’s life histories and details of their likes and dislikes. Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of people’s needs. Activities were provided that helped people to maintain their hobbies and interests.

People told us their needs were met and that staff were attentive and quick to respond to calls for assistance. We saw that to be the case because all call bells were answered promptly. People who used the service felt that staff understood their needs. The training staff received helped them provide care and support to the people who used the service. Staff told us they felt well supported through training and that they had opportunities to progress to more senior positions in the provider organisation.

The manager had a working knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This is legislation that protects people who are not able to consent to care and support, and protects them from unlawful restrictions of their freedom and liberty. Staff were aware of the legislation.

People’s nutritional needs were met. People liked the food the service provided and that they had a good choice of food. Staff ensured that people had enough to drink throughout the day.

People had access to healthcare services when they needed them. They were supported to attend healthcare appointments or the provider arranged for health professionals to visit them.

Staff supported people with kindness and care. People expressed their views about their care and support when they spoke with staff and at `residents meetings’. People’s privacy and dignity were respected. People’s rooms were personalised with family photographs and belongings.

People told us they knew how to raise concerns and that they were listened to. The provider had acted upon feedback from people, for example by introducing different foods for people to choose from.

Inspection carried out on 11 October 2013

During a routine inspection

Following our previous inspection of this service on 22 April 2013 we found two essential standards were not being met. We instructed the provider to make improvements in these areas and carried out this follow up inspection to check that the necessary action had been taken.

The provider had made the improvements we has asked for. Staff had completed their annual mandatory training so their skills and knowledge were up to date. The provider was meeting the requirement to inform the Care Quality Commission if there was a death of any person who used the service.

Inspection carried out on 22 April 2013

During a routine inspection

We met a number of people using the service and spoke in detail with four of these and with one relative visiting at the time of our inspection.

People we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support they received and found staff to be helpful. One person told us, �The staff are very good to me. I am getting to know them all by name and I am pleased with the way they look after me.� Another told us, �I don�t need a lot of help but if I need them the staff are there. They are very pleasant and never grumble.�

A electronic system had been introduced to help manage the administration of medication and was helping to ensure medication was given reliably.

Overall, the building was adequately maintained and people we spoke with were satisfied with the way the building and their bedrooms were furnished and decorated.

Formal recruitment processes were followed and relevant checks carried out before new staff commenced employment. Staff received support from senior staff and colleagues but they had not received all the training they should have had to ensure that there skills and knowledge remained up to date.

There were arrangements in place to monitor the quality of the service and identify areas for improvement.

The provider had not been meeting the requirement to inform the Care Quality Commission of the deaths of any people using the service.