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 were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting and isolation. The provider also described measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
The White House: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found effective infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 18 January 2022 during a COVID-19 outbreak. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, managing testing, supporting safe visits and following current infection control guidance. The home was clean, and extra cleaning was carried out in frequently used areas.
People who tested positive, or had an inconclusive result, were supported to isolate in their rooms. Staff organised care so people were safe and were not left feeling isolated.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a quality rating for the home or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors found that the provider had effective procedures for managing the COVID-19 outbreak. Staff used PPE appropriately and followed testing requirements.
“The registered manager and staff team were following effective infection control procedures to help manage the COVID-19 outbreak.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and fresh. Cleaning schedules were checked, with extra cleaning of heavily used areas during the day.
“Staff followed cleaning schedules which were checked by the management team to ensure they were completed effectively.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home had measures to reduce infection risks for visitors and said it was following current visiting guidance.
“The provider understood and followed current guidance on visiting both during the outbreak and when there was not an outbreak.” from the report
Support during isolation
People who were COVID positive, or awaiting a clear test result, were supported to isolate safely. Care was arranged to reduce the risk of people feeling isolated.
“Care was organised appropriately to ensure people confined to their rooms received safe, effective care and were not feeling isolated” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing staffing pressures if staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 02What infection control, testing and PPE arrangements are in place now?
- 03How can relatives visit, and what checks or restrictions apply during an outbreak?
- 04How would you support my relative if they needed to isolate in their room?
- 05How do you make sure people who are isolating do not become socially isolated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures, so it did not provide full ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 2022 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with some records and activities needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection by two inspectors on 5 February 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, managers and a social care professional. They observed care and checked care plans and management records.
The home provided accommodation and personal care for up to 28 older people. There were 23 people living there at the time. People and relatives said they felt safe, well cared for and listened to. Inspectors found kind staff, enough staff, safe medicines practices and effective support for changing health needs.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report also identified some improvements needed. These included differences between electronic and handwritten medicines records, care plans not containing all the personalised information staff knew, and activities not being as regular as people wanted.
The overall Good rating means the inspectors found the service met legal requirements and provided consistently good care at the time of the inspection. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 21 June 2016.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe and well looked after. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and risk assessments explained how to reduce identified risks.
“People told us they felt safe and well looked after, and their relatives agreed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, respect and reassurance. Staff knew people's preferences and used their preferred ways of communicating.
“We saw very caring interactions between care staff and people in the home.” from the report
Prompt support
People and relatives said there were enough staff. Inspectors saw staff respond quickly to people's needs and call bells.
“On the day of the inspection we saw staff being quick to respond to people's needs and call bells were answered promptly.” from the report
Good links with health services
Staff recognised changes in people's health and sought professional advice promptly. The home worked with health and social care organisations.
“Staff working at the home knew people well.” from the report
Active management
The manager and provider used audits, surveys and meetings to monitor the service. Staff said they could speak up and that actions were taken quickly.
“There was an open culture at the home with staff openly sharing their views in team meetings and supervisions.” from the report
Medicines records did not always match
needs fixingElectronic medicines administration records did not always match handwritten records. The manager said after the inspection that the system error was being corrected.
“However, we noted that the electronic medicine administration records were not always matching the handwritten records.” from the report
Care plans lacked some personal detail
needs fixingCare plans reflected people's current needs but did not include all the personalised information staff knew. Reviews also did not show clearly how people had been involved.
“Care plans needed personalising to capture all the information staff knew about people.” from the report
Activities were not always regular
minorPeople liked the activities but said they wanted more regular activities, outings and trips. Staff sometimes did not have time to do everything planned.
“People told us they liked the activities provided at the home, however these were not as regular as they would like.” from the report
Dining room presentation
minorInspectors said the mealtime experience could be improved through a more purposeful dining-room setting, including better table presentation and displaying the daily menu.
“Meal time experience for people could have been improved by giving more purpose to the dining room with nicely laid tables, condiments and the daily menu being displayed.” from the report
Limited signage
minorVisitors unfamiliar with the building could find it difficult to orient themselves because there was little signage. The manager said more signage was planned.
“However, due to the design and decoration of the building, for visitors who were not familiar with the layout there was little signage available to aid orientation.” from the report
- 01How was the error between the electronic and handwritten medicines records corrected, and how are you checking that records now match?
- 02How will you make sure care plans include all the personal information staff know about my relative?
- 03How are residents involved in reviewing their care plans and recording their views?
- 04How often are activities, outings and trips now provided, and what happens if staff do not have time to run them?
- 05What changes have been made to signage and the dining-room setting since the inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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 Central Bedfordshire
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 £1,260 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.