CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The White House Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found that risks to people's health, medicines and the environment were not always properly assessed or managed. They also found that cleaning and some fire safety arrangements needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this focused inspection, although inspectors observed staff interactions and spoke with people and relatives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks did not always identify problems with risks, medicines, fire safety, consent or records. The provider's systems for monitoring and improving quality were not fully effective.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, care records, consent and safety checks that could harm people.
Inspectors visited on 2 and 6 February 2023. The first visit was unannounced. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment records and audits. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and observed care.
The home was not always safe. Risks linked to health conditions, weight loss, medicines and the building were not always properly assessed or managed. Some capacity assessments were also missing when restrictions such as bed rails or floor sensors were used.
The home had enough staff, and people and relatives generally said they felt safe and well cared for. However, checks and records did not reliably identify or fix problems. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous rated inspection to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and relatives said their loved ones were well looked after.
“People told us they felt safe, and their relatives felt their loved ones were well looked after.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Staff knew people
Staff knew people well and were positive about the management and support available in the home.
“Staff we spoke with knew people well and were positive about the management and support in the home.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns and said they expected the manager to act on concerns.
“Staff were confident the registered manager would take action to keep people safe if they raised any concerns.” from the report
Health and environmental risks
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments were missing, inaccurate or out of date. Fire doors and emergency information also needed attention.
“Risks to people were not always assessed, monitored and reviewed.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousInspectors were not assured that time-sensitive medicines were given as prescribed. Guidance and records for some medicines were also missing.
“We were not assured that people were receiving time sensitive medicines in line with prescribers instructions.” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousCapacity assessments were not always completed when decisions involved restrictions such as bed rails or floor sensors.
“Decisions based on risks that had resulted in restrictions to the person, such as the use of floor sensors and bed rails, had not always prompted capacity assessments” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousAudits did not consistently identify important safety and care issues. Records of meetings and staff support were also incomplete or unavailable.
“Governance and oversight of the service required improvement.” from the report
Cleaning and condition
needs fixingSome areas needed better cleaning and refurbishment to support infection prevention. Carpets were stained or dirty and one toilet had a lingering odour.
“Multiple carpets had stains or ingrained dirt and a one toilet had a lingering odour.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that medicines, especially time-sensitive medicines, are given at the correct times?
- 02How have you updated risk assessments for diabetes, catheter care and unplanned weight loss?
- 03How do you assess capacity and make best-interest decisions when using bed rails or floor sensors?
- 04What actions have you taken to improve audits, care records, staff meeting records and supervision records?
- 05What has been done about the fire doors, emergency information, stained carpets and the toilet odour?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key question ratings were not assessed in this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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, March 2021
The White House Residential Home was inspected but not rated; infection-control arrangements were largely strong, but admissions needed extra measures.
The inspection took place on 12 February 2021. It was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control in the home.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, shielding, social distancing, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, the building layout and outbreak planning. Staff had infection-control training, and the home had increased cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured that people were admitted safely from the community. After receiving feedback, the home put extra measures in place. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a full overall quality rating.
Cleaning and hygiene
Staff had infection-control training, and cleaning schedules covered high-touch surfaces more often.
“Cleaning schedules had been enhanced to include more frequent cleaning of high touch points, such as handrails and light switches.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened, had their temperatures checked, and were provided with hand-sanitising and PPE facilities. The home had also built a visiting pod.
“Screening questions and a temperature check were standard requirements for all visitors.” from the report
PPE and testing
The home had readily available PPE and people and staff received regular coronavirus tests in line with the government programme.
“The service had good supplies of PPE that were readily available in stations throughout the service.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received updated training about keeping people safe during the pandemic and supported people to understand isolation procedures.
“Staff had received update training on how to keep people safe during the coronavirus pandemic.” from the report
Admissions from the community
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that people were admitted safely from the community. The home added further measures after inspectors gave feedback.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was admitting people safely to the service.” from the report
- 01What additional measures were introduced for people admitted from the community after the inspection?
- 02How do you now check that new admissions are safe and that infection risks are managed?
- 03How often are high-touch areas such as handrails and light switches cleaned?
- 04How are visitors screened, provided with PPE and supported to use the visiting pod?
- 05How often are people living here and staff tested for coronavirus?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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.
Every inspection of The White House Residential Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The White House Residential Home →
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at The White House Residential Home →
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.