CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The White House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, quick responses to call bells, safe medicines administration and risk assessments that guided staff. Infection prevention and control arrangements were also considered effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible, had clear roles and carried out audits and action plans. Staff meetings and a resident of the day system helped gather views and review care.
What inspectors found, February 2023
The White House Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe care and strong management, with no formal system for regularly gathering relatives' views.
The inspection took place on 14 January 2023. One inspector spoke with five people, four staff, the manager and the provider's operations director. They reviewed two care plans, medicines records, staffing rotas, policies and training records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, quick responses to call bells, safe medicines systems and suitable risk assessments. Infection control arrangements were also considered effective.
Managers were visible and worked alongside staff. The provider carried out regular audits and used action plans to improve the service. There was no formal system for regularly collecting relatives' views, although a suggestion book was available.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. The overall Good rating remained in place, with the other areas based on the previous inspection's ratings.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were unhurried and responded quickly to call bells.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records were checked regularly. Staff had training and regular competency checks.
“There were robust systems in place to help ensure the safe management of medicines, including those needing additional security.” from the report
Risk management
Care plans identified risks and told staff how to reduce them. The home also had emergency evacuation plans and regular safety checks.
“Care plans contained risk assessments which identified when people were at risk and guided staff on the actions to take to mitigate the risks.” from the report
Visible management
Managers worked alongside staff and had clear responsibilities. The provider's operations director visited regularly and audited the service.
“Managers were visible in the service and worked alongside staff as needed.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including safe use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Relative feedback
minorThe home did not have a formal system for regularly gathering relatives' views. Visitors could use a suggestion book, and managers said they spoke with relatives regularly.
“There was no formal system in place for regularly gathering the views of relatives.” from the report
- 01How will you collect and act on relatives' views and concerns now?
- 02How many staff vacancies are there currently, and how will staffing meet my relative's needs?
- 03How often will agency staff work here, and how will you make sure they know my relative's needs?
- 04How are medicines prescribed for use when needed recorded and reviewed?
- 05How will you involve my relative in decisions about their care and obtain consent?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection published on 11 August 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 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, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some training and meal-time improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection of the home. Inspectors spoke with 16 people, nine relatives, five external professionals and three staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, clean and well cared for. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, suitable staffing levels, secure medicines systems and detailed care plans.
There were some smaller weaknesses. Some staff training records had gaps, people waited around 20 minutes for food at one meal, and the report recommended more end-of-life care training. The home retained its Good rating from the previous inspection in May 2016.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke warmly about staff. Inspectors saw staff taking time to listen and providing personal care discreetly.
“We observed staff sitting and talking with people in lounges in a respectful and friendly manner.” from the report
People felt safe
The home had safeguarding arrangements, regularly reviewed risk assessments and appropriate checks on the building and equipment.
“People told us they felt safe.” from the report
Good care planning
Assessments before admission were detailed. Care plans covered health needs, risks, preferences and people's lives before moving to the home.
“Care plans were detailed and included information about people's physical and mental health care needs and information about their lives before living at the service.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could join in with music, baking, arts and crafts, trips out and visits from community groups and professionals.
“The service had a comprehensive activities programme.” from the report
Strong management checks
Managers worked directly with staff, held meetings and used audits, surveys and incident monitoring to check quality.
“There was also a system of audits to ensure quality in all areas of the service was checked, maintained, and where necessary improved.” from the report
Gaps in training records
needs fixingInspectors found some gaps in records showing that staff had completed required training. They recommended individual action plans so outstanding training was completed within a satisfactory time.
“We recommend the registered provider reviews training which individual staff have not completed, and develops individual action plans with the staff concerned” from the report
Delay before one meal
needs fixingPeople waited for about 20 minutes after sitting down before food was served. Once the meal began, support was described as well organised and unhurried.
“However we were concerned there was a long delay from the time people were seated to the time food was served.” from the report
End-of-life training
needs fixingThe home supported people with end-of-life care, but inspectors recommended that staff receive further training in this area.
“It is recommended the registered persons provide training to staff about end of life care.” from the report
Some personal care details
minorMost people looked well cared for, but inspectors found that two people's fingernails were not clean. Management said they would look into this.
“although we did find this was not the case with two people.” from the report
Limited wayfinding signs
minorThere was no internal signage, which inspectors said could confuse some people who could not find their way around.
“Inside the building there was no signage so this may be confusing for some people if they were unable to find their way around.” from the report
- 01Which staff training was incomplete at the inspection, and has all outstanding training now been completed?
- 02What has changed to prevent people waiting for food after they are seated?
- 03What end-of-life care training have staff received since the inspection?
- 04How quickly do staff usually respond to call bells, particularly when people need personal care?
- 05Have signs or other ways of helping people find their way around the building been added?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the premises and care and gave ratings for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 2018 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 Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.