CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at White Acres
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visiting, PPE, testing, cleaning, admissions and outbreak management. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Targeted inspection found good infection-control practice; the home was inspected but not rated.
The CQC made an unannounced, targeted inspection on 21 January 2022. It looked mainly at infection prevention and control because of COVID-19, and also asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found clear visiting arrangements, safe use of personal protective equipment, regular cleaning and prompt records. They were assured that the home had arrangements for testing, admissions, shielding, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
This report does not give a quality rating. It records the home as inspected but not rated, so it is not a full assessment of all aspects of care.
Visiting arrangements
The home had clear visiting protocols and arrangements to allow people to continue receiving visitors when needed.
“The service had clear visiting protocols in place for visitors to the service.” from the report
Cleaning and records
Staff cleaned high-touch areas regularly and completed the relevant records promptly.
“Staff followed regular cleaning scheduled including high touch areas to reduce the spread of infections.” from the report
Use of PPE
Inspectors saw staff wearing the required personal protective equipment during the visit.
“During our inspection, we observed staff wore required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).” from the report
People understood precautions
People living at the home understood why infection-control measures were in place and discussed what would happen during a COVID-19 outbreak.
“People at the service demonstrated that they had been involved and aware of the reason for infection control protocols at the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What staffing pressures were present during the inspection, and did they affect the care provided?
- 02How would visits for my relative be arranged during normal periods and during a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 03How are people supported if they need to isolate during an outbreak?
- 04How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and how are these checks recorded?
- 05How are residents and families kept informed about testing, PPE and infection-control changes?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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 2018
White Acres was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some improvements still needed in training and capacity records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, checked care and recruitment records, and reviewed medicines, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by staff who knew them, treated them respectfully and helped them make choices. Care plans were detailed and people were supported with their health, food, activities and links with family and the community.
There were some shortfalls. Some capacity assessments were not linked to one specific decision. Some staff who worked at the home less often had training that was overdue. One person did not have a risk assessment for a medicine at the time of inspection, but this was put in place after inspectors raised it.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the January 2017 inspection. The previous breach about good governance was no longer present, and inspectors found that improvements to the environment and management checks had been made and sustained.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. They understood people's preferences and communication needs.
“People received care from staff that knew them and were kind, compassionate and respectful.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records gave staff detailed guidance about people's personal, health, social and communication needs. Plans were reviewed and updated.
“People's care records provided detailed information about their needs and how they were to be supported.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines records were completed accurately and staff were trained and observed before giving medicines independently.
“The Medication Administration records (MAR) charts had been completed accurately.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The home used regular audits and feedback to monitor care and identify improvements. The previous governance concerns had been addressed.
“Comprehensive audits were completed regularly at the service to review the quality of care provided.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends and to attend activities such as clubs, events and day centres.
“People were supported to attend community activities outside of the home such as local events, day centres, luncheon clubs, and disco's where they could meet with their friends.” from the report
Medicine risk record
needs fixingOne person's medicine did not have a risk assessment when inspectors checked. A risk assessment was provided after inspectors raised this with the area manager.
“One person did not have a risk assessment in place for a medicine they were taking.” from the report
Overdue bank staff training
needs fixingStaff who did not work regularly at the home had not always completed training updates when they were due. The manager said all staff training would be reviewed.
“Staff who did not work regularly at the service, [bank staff] had not updated all of their training courses when these were due to be renewed.” from the report
Capacity assessments
needs fixingSome assessments were not about one clear decision and did not record how the person had been helped to decide. These assessments were due to be reviewed.
“some capacity assessments were not based on one specific decision and did not include how the person had been supported to make their own decision.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure bank staff have completed all required training before working at the home?
- 02How are capacity assessments linked to the specific decision being made, and how is support for the person's own decision recorded?
- 03What medicine risk assessments are in place for my relative, and how often are they reviewed?
- 04Which refurbishment or environmental improvements are still outstanding, and when are they expected to be completed?
- 05How will my relative be supported to take part in activities and keep in touch with family and the local community?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions with people, relatives and staff, and checks of care, recruitment, training and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2018 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 White Acres
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.