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
- People were protected from abuse, risk plans were regularly reviewed, and staffing levels were sufficient. Medicines records were complete and medicines audits were carried out weekly.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, induction and regular supervision. People received support with food, healthcare, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. People were supported to make choices, maintain independence and follow their cultural and faith needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with communication, relationships, community activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was described as approachable and active in the home. Regular audits were used to identify and address improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2019
The White House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but raised concerns about the kitchen and furnishings.
This was an unannounced inspection over 12 and 15 November 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and a healthcare professional. Records about care, medicines, staffing, safety and complaints were also checked.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, trained staff, personalised care and support for people to make choices and take part in community activities.
Inspectors found a heavily stained settee, worn chopping boards, damaged kitchen cupboards and broken tiles. The settee and chopping boards were replaced during the inspection, and the provider said a new kitchen would be completed by 2 December 2019. Inspectors said this would be checked at the next inspection.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 7 September 2017. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management, although the home still needed to address the environmental issues identified.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found that medicines records were complete, stocks and balances were accurate, and staff received medicines training.
“We reviewed the Medicine Administration Records (MAR) for three people and found these were completed correctly, with no gaps or omission.” from the report
Respectful care
People were treated with dignity and supported to make decisions about their care, food and activities.
“Throughout the two-day inspection, we observed staff speaking with people in a respectful manner, laughing and joking with one another.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to take part in activities at home and in the community, including clubs, discos, shopping and cinema trips.
“People continued to participate in a variety of activities that met their social, emotional and faith needs.” from the report
Active management
The registered manager used audits, questionnaires and partnership working to monitor the service and make improvements.
“Records confirmed audits covered all aspects of the service, for example, medicines management, fire safety, care plans, staff files and risk management plans.” from the report
Kitchen and furnishings
needs fixingInspectors found a stained settee, worn chopping boards and damaged parts of the kitchen. Some items were replaced during the inspection, and a new kitchen was due to be completed by 2 December 2019.
“The kitchen area had damaged cupboards and broken tiles.” from the report
- 01Was the new kitchen completed by 2 December 2019, and what improvements were made?
- 02How often is the home now deep cleaned, and has the planned ancillary staff support been put in place?
- 03How are people involved in reviewing their care plans and choosing their activities?
- 04How are medicines audits checked, and how quickly are any recording errors addressed?
- 05How does the home support each person's communication needs, including Makaton or interpreters where needed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including both the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with activities shaped around people’s choices.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 June and 3 July 2017. One inspector visited the home, spoke with four of the five people living there, staff, a relative and an advocate, and contacted a health professional. Records, care plans, medicines, training, safeguarding information and the home’s quality checks were also reviewed.
Inspectors found that people were safe and received individual support from staff who knew them well. Medicines were administered safely, risks were reviewed, staff were trained, and people had access to health professionals. People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and maintain relationships with family and the community.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the service was meeting the relevant standards at that time. The previous inspection in May 2015 had found that a small number of cream medicine records were incomplete, but this inspection found the medicine records were complete.
Personalised support
Staff knew people’s likes, dislikes and routines. Support was adapted to each person, including during shared activities.
“The staff team provided the care and support people needed in an individual, person centred way including during group activities” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered safely, recorded correctly, stored securely and disposed of appropriately.
“People's medicines were administered safely. We checked the medicine administration records for people using the service and found that the records were completed correctly.” from the report
Choice and activities
People had individual activity plans and could choose between activities at home and in the community.
“Each person had their own weekly individual activity plan.” from the report
Listening management
The manager and staff were described as approachable and willing to listen. The home used feedback and regular checks to monitor its work.
“The home's quality assurance, feedback and recording systems covered all aspects of the service monitoring standards and driving improvement.” from the report
Weekend activities
minorAn advocate said the balance of activities was right overall, but felt there could be more activities at weekends. This was a minor point rather than a reported safety concern.
“although there could be more on the weekends.” from the report
- 01What activities are currently available at weekends, and how are people’s individual interests used to plan them?
- 02How do you check that medicine records remain complete, including records for creams?
- 03How are my relative’s risks reviewed when their needs or interests change?
- 04How will my relative be involved in planning and reviewing their care?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how will the home show what action was taken?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 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.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 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 Richmond upon Thames
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. 78 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.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.