CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The White House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found several infection-control arrangements in place, but were not assured that the home met good infection prevention and control guidelines.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
The White House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found several infection-control measures in place but were not fully assured about the service's approach.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found procedures to reduce infection risks for visitors, safe use of personal protective equipment, testing for people and staff, increased cleaning and extra staffing arrangements.
However, the report says inspectors were not assured that the home met good infection prevention and control guidelines. They signposted the provider to resources to improve its approach.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Visitor infection controls
The home had procedures intended to reduce the risk of visitors catching or spreading infections.
“Procedures were in place to prevent the transmission of infection to and from visitors.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
Staff used protective equipment as required and helped people living in the home understand why it was needed.
“Staff complied with the requirement to use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and had supported people so that they also understood the need for this.” from the report
Testing arrangements
The provider carried out testing across the home and kept information to help decide when staff could safely return to work.
“Whole home testing was carried out and the provider kept other information to make sure that staff were safe to return to work.” from the report
Cleaning and staffing
Cleaning of frequently touched surfaces had increased. The provider also arranged extra staff and limited agency staff from working at other services.
“Cleaning of the home, including frequently touched surfaces, had increased to reduce the risk of transmission of infection.” from the report
Not fully assured about infection control
needs fixingInspectors were not assured that the home met good infection prevention and control guidelines. They signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
“We were not assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to your infection prevention and control approach since this inspection?
- 02How do you now check that visitors follow infection-control procedures?
- 03How do you check that staff use personal protective equipment safely and effectively?
- 04How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and how is this recorded?
- 05How do you manage agency staff who may also work at other services?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 2021 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, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staffing still described as tight by one staff member.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 14 March 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, friends, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines and management information.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, received suitable support with medicines, food and healthcare, and were treated with dignity and respect.
The report says the home had improved since the previous inspection in December 2017, when its overall rating and three areas were Requires Improvement. Systems for staffing, personalised care and quality monitoring had improved. The home did not have a manager registered with the CQC at the time, although the manager was applying to register.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, understood what mattered to them and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“There was a caring and friendly atmosphere in the home between staff and people using the Service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and preferences, and were reviewed when needs changed.
“Care plans were thorough and contained person-centred information which detailed what was important to the individual.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities and maintain interests, family links and connections with the local community.
“People had opportunities to take part in a range of activities and were encouraged to maintain interests which were important to them to lead meaningful lives.” from the report
Improved leadership
The new manager had introduced daily meetings and other changes. Audits and an improvement plan were used to track action.
“Regular audits were carried out to check the quality of the service.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingAlthough inspectors found enough staff during the visit, one staff member said staffing remained tight and breaks were not always taken. One person also felt staff could sometimes be slow to answer bells.
“People are safe but it's still tight. Breaks are not always taken.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThe manager was not registered with the CQC when inspectors visited, although an application was in progress. Families may want to check the current position.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are planned for each shift, and how do you respond when staffing feels tight?
- 02How do you make sure staff can take their breaks and answer call bells promptly?
- 03What is the current position on the manager's application to register with the CQC?
- 04What changes were made after the previous Requires Improvement inspection, and how do you check that they remain effective?
- 05How will you tailor activities, meals and daily routines to my relative's preferences?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the care home premises, with ratings given for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 2019 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 White House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2010.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.