CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whiston House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed and managed, although some risk assessments were generic rather than personalised.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's physical, mental health and social needs were assessed. Staff had relevant training, people received support with food and drink, and health concerns were referred appropriately.
- Caring?
- Good
- People received kind and compassionate care. Staff respected people's choices, privacy, dignity and independence, and relatives were involved in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Most people had personalised care and a range of activities. A few people had few meaningful activities, with no clear guidance showing how staff should encourage them or prevent social isolation.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had experienced leadership, regular audits and an open approach to feedback. Managers and staff understood their roles and used feedback and incidents to make improvements.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found some people were not supported enough with meaningful activities, so Responsive was Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 September 2019. One inspector spoke with four people, staff, managers and two relatives. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, received kind care, had appropriate support for their health and were supported by experienced managers and staff.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Most people had activities, goals and personalised support, but a few people took part in very few meaningful activities. Records did not show enough encouragement or support to reduce the risk of social isolation.
The overall Good rating means the home was meeting the expected standards in most areas. However, the lower Responsive rating shows that people's needs were not always fully met. The home was rated Good overall at the previous inspection, published in January 2017.
Kind relationships
People and relatives were positive about the care. Staff knew people well and built trusting relationships.
“People received kind and compassionate care. People and their relatives were positive about the care provided.” from the report
Safety systems
Staff understood safeguarding and how to manage individual risks. Medicines, incidents, recruitment and infection control were checked and managed safely.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm because staff knew how to identify and report any concerns relating to the risk of abuse.” from the report
Health and nutrition
The home worked with health professionals when people's needs changed. People were supported with healthy food, personal choices and specialist dietary needs.
“When people were at risk of poor nutrition and hydration, plans were in place to monitor their diet closely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences and communication methods. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing them.
“People's care and support was personalised and flexible.” from the report
Leadership and improvement
Managers were approachable and used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements.
“The provider had effective systems to monitor the quality of the service they provided and to drive improvements where needed.” from the report
Too few meaningful activities
needs fixingA few people took part in very few meaningful activities. Their goals and aspirations had not been identified, and records did not show how staff encouraged them to take part or build relationships.
“There was no guidance in place on how best to encourage and support these few people to live more fulfilling lives.” from the report
Generic risk assessments
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not contain enough individual detail. Managers had identified this and were taking action to correct it.
“Some risk assessments were not personalised and contained generic information.” from the report
Promoting independence
minorManagers had identified that some staff did tasks for people rather than supporting them to do as much as possible themselves. This was being addressed through staff discussions and supervision.
“The registered manager had identified that occasions staff where doing things 'for' people instead of 'with' people.” from the report
Large building
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building's two-unit design reduced the negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What meaningful activities and personal goals are now available for people who prefer to spend time in their rooms?
- 02How do staff record the encouragement and support offered to prevent social isolation?
- 03Has the activities co-ordinator started work, and what changes have resulted?
- 04How have the generic risk assessments been made more personal and specific?
- 05How do managers check that staff support people to do tasks with them, rather than doing tasks for them?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with care, premises, records, staff practice and management systems reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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, January 2017
Whiston House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with one medicines instruction corrected during the visit.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 6 January 2017. The inspectors spoke with people, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked support plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home supported 11 people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors found enough trained staff, detailed risk assessments, safe medicine processes and prompt support with health needs. People were treated with kindness and respect, and were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities they enjoyed.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. One medicines administration record contained an incorrect instruction, but this was corrected immediately during the inspection.
Staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills and enough time to support people without rushing. Individual risk assessments and preventative behaviour guidance helped reduce risks.
“There were enough staff with the right skills and knowledge to support people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences and communicated patiently. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and supported when distressed.
“Staff spoke to people in a kind, patient and engaging way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care files used pictures and clear information about people's routines, preferences, communication and goals. People were involved in writing and agreeing their care plans.
“People's care files were written in an easy read format which included pictures to help people understand its content.” from the report
Activities and choice
People had activity timetables based on their abilities and preferences. They could take part in varied activities inside and outside the home.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities that were meaningful for them.” from the report
Health support
People were supported to attend a range of health appointments. Staff followed professional advice and shared relevant information with the staff team.
“Peoples health needs were responded to quickly and professional advice from outside health professionals was utilised well.” from the report
Incorrect medicine instruction
needs fixingAn incorrect instruction was found on a medicine administration record for a medicine that had to be given at a particular time. The error was corrected immediately and updated procedures were put in place.
“An error had been made on the instructions detailed on the Medicine Administration Record (MAR) around the correct processes for administering this medicine” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine administration records contain the correct instructions?
- 02What staffing levels are in place during the day and at night, and how are shortfalls covered?
- 03How are people involved in reviewing their care plans and choosing their activities?
- 04How do staff recognise and respond to unhappiness or complaints from people who cannot complain verbally?
- 05How are health appointments and professional advice recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the service and all five CQC question areas, including care, staffing, medicines, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 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 Whiston House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.