CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whiston Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some minor improvements still needed.
Inspectors visited without warning on 18 May 2022. They spoke with five people, nine relatives and seven staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found that staff supported people kindly and respected their choices, privacy and dignity.
Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, training and accidents were managed through suitable systems. They also found good care planning, activities, food and links with health professionals. Minor concerns about the premises were dealt with during the visit.
The overall rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published on 23 October 2020. The provider had completed an action plan after that inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“People we spoke with felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people in a caring, person-centred way. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy and offer choices about daily life.
“Staff supported people in a caring and person-centred way.” from the report
Improved management
The home had quality checks and used feedback to make changes. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good based on the findings of this inspection.” from the report
As-needed medicines
needs fixingProtocols for medicines prescribed to be given when needed were in place, but inspectors said they could contain more detail.
“These could be more detailed.” from the report
End of life plans
needs fixingCare plans included some end of life information, but inspectors said it was not detailed enough.
“People's care plans included some information regarding end of life care; however, these could be more detailed.” from the report
Choice of visiting areas
minorThe home allowed visits, but some relatives wanted more choice about where visits took place. The home was considering other safe options.
“Relatives commented that they have access to a visitor's room and outside but would like to start visiting other parts of the home.” from the report
Minor premises concerns
minorInspectors found minor concerns during their tour. These were dealt with immediately.
“During the tour of the home we identified some minor concerns which were addressed immediately.” from the report
- 01What extra detail has been added to protocols for medicines prescribed on an as-needed basis?
- 02How do you record and review each person’s wishes for end of life care?
- 03What visiting areas are currently available, and has the choice of areas increased since the inspection?
- 04How would staffing numbers change if more people moved into the home?
- 05What actions from the previous inspection’s improvement plan are still being monitored?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the report says all five ratings had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 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, October 2020
Requires Improvement; inspectors found enough staff and kind, person-centred care, but gaps in infection control, training and management support.
This was a focused inspection in September 2020. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, looked around the home, observed care and activities, and checked care and management records.
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors found safeguarding systems, risk assessments and medicines arrangements were generally in place. However, there were minor medicines stock problems, gaps in infection control training and staff did not always keep socially distant.
Staff training had some shortfalls, and staff gave mixed views about how well managers supported them and whether they could raise concerns. The new manager had an improvement plan and the home had improved its governance since the previous inspection.
The overall rating stayed Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17, although inspectors said further improvement was needed.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff were deployed to meet people's needs, and relatives and staff reported no staffing concerns.
“There were enough staff deployed to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff had safeguarding training and knew what action to take if they suspected abuse. The provider had also taken appropriate action when incidents occurred.
“Staff had received training in safeguarding, and those we asked could describe the action they would be required to take should an incident arise.” from the report
Person-centred care
Inspectors observed care that respected people as individuals. Relatives also described staff as open and approachable.
“Care was provided in a person centred way. Staff we observed demonstrated this.” from the report
Improved governance
Management systems had improved since the previous inspection, and the provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17, although further improvements are required.” from the report
Infection control training
needs fixingNot all staff had training in using PPE correctly. Staff did not always keep socially distant, and some could not recall pandemic-related training.
“However, not all staff had received training in how to correctly use PPE.” from the report
Staff training gaps
needs fixingRecords and staff feedback showed shortfalls in training. The manager said a new training programme had been introduced to address them.
“Records showed there were shortfalls in staff training, and staff gave a mixed picture of the training they had received.” from the report
Minor medicines shortfalls
minorMedicines systems had improved, but inspectors found some minor problems with stock numbers.
“Medicines, and records of medicines, were audited frequently to ensure any shortfalls were identified, although we identified some minor shortfalls in stock numbers.” from the report
- 01What training have all staff now completed on infection control and the correct use of PPE?
- 02How are you checking that staff keep appropriate distance where possible and follow infection control procedures?
- 03Has the new staff training programme addressed the shortfalls identified in the report?
- 04How can staff raise concerns with managers, and how do you check that they feel supported?
- 05What action was taken to prevent further medicines stock shortfalls?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not reviewed during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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.
Every inspection of Whiston Hall
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
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 7 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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.