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
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, with suitable risk plans, safety checks and enough staff. One medicines administration record was not signed, although medicine stocks indicated the dose had been given.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and understood people's health, dietary and support needs. People were supported to access healthcare and follow professional advice.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to communicate, make choices, maintain privacy and do as much as possible for themselves.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's routines, interests and communication needs. People had activities, outings and support to maintain relationships, but complaint information was not yet in an accessible format.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were described as open and supportive, and they acted on feedback. Some audit formats were checklists that did not help managers identify how the service could improve further.
What inspectors found, March 2020
The White House Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a medicines recording error and some checks needing improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 26 February 2020. They spoke with people and relatives, observed care, and checked care plans, staff records, medicines, the building and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, clean premises, personalised care, kind interactions and good support with health, activities and relationships.
There were some minor weaknesses. A staff member did not sign one medicines record, complaint information was not in an accessible format, and some quality checks were too limited to identify further improvements. Managers said they would take action.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that staff gave people time, respected privacy and supported independence.
“Staff were warm and friendly and engaged and communicated with people throughout the day.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's histories, preferences, routines and communication methods. Staff knew how to support people in their preferred way.
“People's records contained information about them, their life history, their likes and dislikes, hobbies and interests, their preferred routines and their preferences for how care and support should be provided.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported with outings, hobbies, social activities and friendships. Managers had increased the range of activities since the previous inspection.
“People were supported to take part in activities and pursue interests that reflected their preference for how they wished to spend their day.” from the report
Good health support
Staff supported people to eat and drink enough, attend healthcare appointments and follow recommendations from healthcare professionals.
“Recommendations made by healthcare professionals were acted on to help people achieve effective outcomes in relation to their health and wellbeing.” from the report
Medicines record error
needs fixingOne morning medicines record had not been signed, even though stocks suggested the medicine had been given. Managers said they would check medicines weekly until they were satisfied this would not happen again.
“We noted for one person staff had not signed the person's individual medicines administration record (MAR) on the day of our inspection.” from the report
Complaint information was not fully accessible
minorInformation about complaints was displayed, but inspectors said it should have been in an easier-to-read format. Managers said they would review and update it immediately after the inspection.
“This would have benefited from being in a more accessible format, for example an easy to read version, to make this easier for people to understand.” from the report
Quality checks could be stronger
minorSome monitoring formats were simple checklists and did not help managers identify further areas for improvement. Managers said they would review these arrangements.
“We noted some of the formats used were checklists and therefore did not help managers to consider areas where the service could improve further.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for nine people and all nine places were in use. Inspectors said this was larger than current best practice guidance, although the building and setting reduced the negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What weekly medicines checks were introduced after the inspection, and have any further recording errors been found?
- 02Has information about complaints been rewritten in an easy-to-read format, and how can my relative use it?
- 03How have the quality checks been changed so they identify improvements rather than just record completed checks?
- 04How does the home manage its size of nine people while supporting choice, independence and individual routines?
- 05What progress has been made with the planned extension and refurbishment, including larger rooms and en-suite facilities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the care, premises and management of the service, with all five CQC quality areas rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 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
The White House Care Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and risk checks needing improvement.
Inspectors visited without notice on 8 August 2017. They spoke with people living at the home, the providers, staff, a relative and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, staff records, medicines and management checks.
The home supported nine adults with learning disabilities and/or mental health needs. People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough staff, medicines were given as prescribed, risks were assessed and staff understood how to protect people from harm.
Inspectors found staff supported people's health, choices, communication, privacy and daily activities. Care plans were detailed and personalised. Staff had caring relationships with people and encouraged community activities.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection in July 2015. Inspectors found some minor shortfalls, and the provider supplied evidence that these had been addressed after the visit.
Enough staff
Inspectors found flexible staffing during the day and night, including support for people who needed staff when out in the community.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to support people during the day and at night.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences and communication needs. They supported people to make choices and protected their privacy and dignity.
“Staff built caring trusting relationships with people. They continued to support people to make day to day decisions and respected people's choices.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's health, personal care, social needs and daily routines. Staff supported activities at home and in the community.
“People continued to receive personalised care. Care plans provided detailed information about people's needs and how they preferred to be cared for.” from the report
Strong leadership
The providers were closely involved in the home and available to staff outside normal working hours. Systems were in place to review safety and quality.
“There was clear management and leadership of the service.” from the report
Medicine stock records
needs fixingThe provider checked medicines and stock levels, but was not recording those checks during the visit. Evidence of documented checks was sent after the inspection.
“However, at the time of our inspection the provider was not recording these checks and therefore there was a risk that they could not account for all medicines on site.” from the report
Mobility care plan
needs fixingOne person's mobility plan did not fully explain what they could do independently and where they needed help. The provider updated the plan after the inspection.
“However, their mobility care plan did not contain sufficient detail about what the person was able to do for themselves and where they needed assistance.” from the report
Environmental safety checks
minorInspectors identified a free-standing heater and a lack of window restrictors as possible risks. The heater was removed and window restrictors were installed after the inspection.
“At the time of the inspection there were no window restrictors in place.” from the report
- 01How are medicines stock checks recorded now, and who reviews those records?
- 02How often are people's mobility care plans reviewed and updated after their needs change?
- 03What safety checks are now in place for heaters, windows and other environmental risks?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff to support people safely both at the home and in the community?
- 05How are people's choices about activities, routines, communication and health care recorded and followed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the home was rated Good overall and in each area, as it had been at the previous inspection in 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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 The White House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.