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.
What inspectors found, October 2019
The White House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 September 2019. One inspector spoke with four people living at the home, two relatives and three staff members. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, were treated kindly and had choices about their daily lives. Staff supported people to be independent, take part in activities and access healthcare.
Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, safe medicines systems, suitable staffing and good-quality care plans. The home used positive behaviour support and no restraint, seclusion or segregation was used.
There were some areas for improvement. Parts of the home needed redecoration, care plans were not yet in an easy-read or pictorial format, and end-of-life wishes were not fully recorded. The overall Good rating means inspectors found the service met the expected standards at this inspection.
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their lives and care. Staff supported them to develop skills, manage daily tasks and take part in activities they chose.
“People were supported to be as independent as they could be and were encouraged to help with daily domestic tasks.” from the report
Safe support
Risks were assessed and control measures were recorded. Inspectors found safe medicines practice, suitable staffing and completed fire safety actions.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans included people's communication needs, preferences, interests and guidance for staff. People and important others were involved in reviewing care.
“Care plans were person-centred and included information on how people wanted to be supported.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff said they felt supported and listened to. The home used audits, meetings and action plans to check quality and make improvements.
“The provider has systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service.” from the report
Tired decoration
minorThe home was clean and tidy, but inspectors found that some decoration was tired and needed improvement. New carpets had been fitted and further work was planned.
“However, the décor was tired in places and in need of redecoration.” from the report
Accessible care information
needs fixingSome information, such as the complaints procedure, was available in easy-read form. Care plans were not yet easy-read or pictorial, although improvement was planned.
“However, care plans were not in this format.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingCare plans did not include people's end-of-life wishes. One person's preferences had been discussed but were still due to be added, and staff training had not yet been completed.
“People's care plans did not include information about their end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01Have the planned redecoration works been completed, and which areas still need attention?
- 02How are care plans now made accessible for people who need easy-read or pictorial information?
- 03How do you record and regularly review each person's end-of-life wishes?
- 04Have all staff completed the end-of-life care training that was booked after the inspection?
- 05How do people and relatives give feedback, and how are verbal compliments or concerns recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some concern about staff changes.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 March 2017. Inspectors spoke with four people using the service, three staff members and two relatives. They also received feedback from two health and social care professionals and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training, respectful care and detailed support plans based on people's individual needs.
People were supported to make choices about food, activities and their daily lives. The home had systems for complaints, feedback and quality checks. Relatives raised some concern about staff changing regularly, although inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient during their visit and shifts had been covered.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and inspectors found safeguarding procedures, risk assessments and emergency arrangements in place.
“People we spoke with indicated they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans included people's preferences, communication needs, interests and goals. People were involved in decisions about their care and activities.
“Each person's support plan was based on their needs, abilities, likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's privacy and supporting their independence.
“We observed on the day of our inspection that people were treated with care and respect.” from the report
Good management oversight
The management team was described as approachable and supportive. Audits, meetings and action plans were used to review and improve the service.
“The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service to ensure that areas for improvement were identified and addressed.” from the report
Staff changes
minorSome relatives were concerned that staff changed regularly and that they did not know new staff well. Inspectors found enough staff on the day and saw that shifts had been covered, but families may want to ask how continuity is maintained.
“However, relatives expressed some concern about the fast changeover of staff” from the report
- 01How often do staff change, and how will my relative be introduced to new or agency staff?
- 02How do you adjust staffing levels when a person's needs change or when one-to-one support is required?
- 03How are my relative's choices about food, activities and daily care recorded and reviewed?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing the care plan and raising any concerns?
- 05What recent improvements have resulted from audits, meetings or feedback?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
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 Hounslow
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 £1,270 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.