CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at White House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found personalised risk assessments, enough suitable staff, safe medicines procedures and appropriate infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training, supervision and knowledge. People's care was reviewed, their dietary needs were met and they could access a range of health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make decisions, communicate their views and maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised and went beyond basic requirements. The home supported cultural and religious activities, complex communication needs, emotional needs, activities and bereavement.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective audits, checks and systems for learning from incidents. The manager and staff promoted person-centred care and involved people, relatives and professionals in improving the service.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found exceptionally personalised and responsive care, with all other areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 10 April 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, complaints, accidents and other service records.
The home supported nine people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, staff were trained, medicines were given safely and people's health, food and communication needs were supported. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The strongest area was responsive care, rated Outstanding. Inspectors found highly individual support for people's cultural, religious, emotional and communication needs. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection in December 2016.
Highly personalised care
Inspectors found that care was tailored to each person and helped people live as fully and independently as possible.
“Without exception, people received highly personalised care which not only met their needs and preferences, but also enabled them to live as full and independent a life as possible.” from the report
Strong communication support
The home used several communication methods to help people understand what was happening, express feelings and make choices.
“The service took innovative steps to meet people's information and communication needs over and above complying with the Accessible Information Standard.” from the report
Support for cultural and religious needs
Staff supported people's religious practices, cultural activities, clothing and dietary choices.
“The service responded and went the extra mile to address people's needs in relation to protected equality characteristics.” from the report
Good safety arrangements
Inspectors found enough suitable staff, regular risk reviews and safe systems for medicines, emergencies and infection control.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication method, such as pictures, signs, objects or communication books?
- 02How would you meet my relative's cultural, religious and dietary needs?
- 03How would you assess and manage my relative's health risks, including any risk of choking, seizures or difficulties attending appointments?
- 04What activities would be available that match my relative's interests and choices?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 May 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, December 2016
White House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some minor issues needing attention.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 09 November 2016. One inspector and an expert by experience visited. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, managers and relatives. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, audits and the building.
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and that risks, staffing, medicines and recruitment were managed well. Staff had suitable training and support. People received food they enjoyed and help with healthcare. Staff were described as warm, respectful and familiar with people's needs.
Care plans were personalised and people were supported to choose activities and make decisions. The home had a positive staff culture and carried out quality checks. Inspectors found some minor safety and record-keeping issues, but the home took action on these during or shortly after the inspection. All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing was sufficient, including during busy periods. Staff could respond promptly and spend time with people.
“At all times during the days of our visit, there were enough staff around, which meant that they were able to respond immediately when people indicated they needed support.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, routines and life stories. Staff adjusted care when needs changed.
“Care plans were well-written and incorporated personal details specific and relevant the needs of the person.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff knew people well and used different communication methods. Inspectors saw privacy, dignity and choice being respected.
“We found that people received care which was dignified and respectful.” from the report
Good staff preparation
Staff received ongoing training in subjects relevant to the people they supported, including epilepsy and behaviours that challenged the service.
“Staff received specific, ongoing training and we found they were skilled in their roles.” from the report
Positive management
Staff and outside professionals gave positive feedback about the management. The home used audits and reviews to monitor care.
“We found the management team honest, approachable and professional.” from the report
Minor building safety issues
needs fixingA downstairs bathroom did not drain properly, creating excess water that could cause a slip. Some call bells and a fire assembly point sign were also missing, and a disabled parking bay was not marked. The home said these issues were addressed.
“This meant excess water on the floor which could lead to a person slipping over.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingMedicines were managed safely overall, but opening dates were not always written on bottles. Inspectors also advised that suspected or detected medicines errors should be logged.
“We advised that any suspected or detected error, such as a missed staff signature, should be logged as a medicines incident.” from the report
Incident learning
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed, but inspectors said the home needed to examine patterns and trends more closely to help prevent similar incidents happening again.
“The service needed to look at any patterns or trends to prevent similar incidents from reoccurring.” from the report
Complaint information
minorEasy-read complaint information was available but was not displayed on a communal notice board. People and visitors had to ask staff or look in the service user guide.
“Information in regards to how to make a complaint was in easy-read format, but not visibly displayed in a communal notice board.” from the report
Missed notifications
needs fixingThe home had not notified the regulator when two people received legal authorisations relating to restrictions on their liberty. Management corrected this immediately and provided confirmation afterwards.
“However, the service had failed to send us notifications when two people were granted standard DoLS authorisations by social care professionals.” from the report
- 01How are individual risks reviewed when a person's behaviour or health needs change?
- 02How do you make sure medicines bottles have opening dates, and how are suspected medicines errors recorded?
- 03How do you review accidents and incidents for patterns, and what changes have followed from that learning?
- 04How can residents and relatives access the complaints information if it is not displayed in communal areas?
- 05How do you make sure all required notifications about legal restrictions are sent to the regulator?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five key questions, and it was the home's first rating under the Care Act 2014. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 2016 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 House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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
83 live-in carers within about an hour of Windsor and Maidenhead
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.