Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at White Lodge Care Home

Requires improvementpublished 4 February 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Inspectors found problems with staffing, medicines management, infection control, heating, premises checks, recruitment records and safeguarding processes. Risk assessments for personal care were satisfactory, and some incidents were investigated appropriately.
Effective?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
Caring?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
Responsive?
Good
This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Management oversight and records were not reliable enough, and audits did not always identify safety or compliance failures. There was an improvement plan, regular staff meetings and positive feedback about the home manager and deputy manager.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2023

White Lodge Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in staffing, medicines, infection control and management systems.

This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 23, 24 and 31 January 2023. Inspectors reviewed the Safe and Well-led areas because CQC had received concerns about medicines, infection control, staffing and leadership. They spoke with four people, 11 relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.

The home was not always safe. Inspectors found insufficient staffing at times, unsafe medicines storage and disposal, weak infection-control arrangements, and problems with heating and other premises safety checks. Some recruitment records were incomplete. CQC also found that audits and oversight did not reliably identify or correct these problems.

There were positive findings too. Staff were described as kind, people and relatives were generally satisfied, and there were examples of learning from incidents. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in August 2019, to Requires Improvement. The other three question ratings were not reviewed during this focused inspection and carried over from the previous inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind staff

    Inspectors saw staff being patient and kind, including when supporting people whose behaviour was challenging or who walked around the home.

    “Care workers were patient and kind to the service users, especially those with behaviours that challenge and those walking with purpose.” from the report
  • Learning from incidents

    Incidents and accidents were investigated when identified, and there were examples of actions being taken to reduce the chance of the same thing happening again.

    “There were good examples of lessons learned from incidents, and where needed, this information was shared with staff.” from the report
  • Communication with relatives

    Relatives generally said that staff kept them informed about incidents, changes and activities.

    “They keep us well informed with emails and phone calls” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unsafe medicines handling

    serious

    Controlled drugs were stored outside the safe, stock checks were not completed regularly, and some unused medicines had not been returned or disposed of correctly.

    “Controlled drugs were found stored outside the safe.” from the report
  • Staffing levels

    serious

    There were not always enough staff to supervise people safely and provide timely support. Some staff worked long runs of back-to-back shifts, and people were left waiting at mealtimes.

    “Sufficient staff were not deployed to ensure people's safe care, which placed them at risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
  • Infection control

    serious

    Personal protective equipment and continence products were stored incorrectly. Cleaning records and procedures did not show that cleaning was being completed consistently.

    “People and others were not protected as far as possible from preventable infections.” from the report
  • Building safety

    serious

    Some rooms were cold, some radiators did not work, and portable radiators did not have guards. The Legionella assessment had not been updated since 2016 and some required checks had not been completed.

    “Premises and equipment were not satisfactorily maintained to ensure safety.” from the report
  • Weak management checks

    serious

    Audits were carried out but did not always find important problems. The provider also could not produce some records and did not fully oversee the management arrangements.

    “The provider failed to effectively assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
  • Incomplete recruitment records

    serious

    The provider could not provide all the required information for one staff member's personnel file. CQC said responsibility for safe recruitment remained with the provider, even when an agency was used.

    “Recruitment procedures were not properly established and operated effectively to ensure that persons employed were 'fit and proper'.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What staffing levels are now in place on each shift, including cover for sickness, leave, training and busy mealtimes?
  2. 02How are controlled drugs now stored, checked, returned or destroyed, and how are medicine-fridge temperatures checked?
  3. 03What changes have been made to cleaning records, storage of personal protective equipment and continence products, and the use of cleaning equipment?
  4. 04Have the heating faults, unguarded portable radiators, fire-safety actions and Legionella checks all been completed, and can we see the evidence?
  5. 05What action has been taken to improve management audits, staff recruitment records and the handling of safeguarding incidents?

This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over from 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 2023 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2022

Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection controls but concerns about outdated policies and missing cleaning records.

The CQC carried out an announced, targeted inspection on 27 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures. The overall service was inspected but not rated.

Inspectors found staff had infection control training, suitable PPE was available, regular testing was in place and relatives could visit safely. The home had extra measures for people who needed to isolate, including extra PPE and careful staff allocation.

There were some gaps. Inspectors were only somewhat assured about hygiene practices, managing possible outbreaks and the layout of the premises. The infection control policy was not up to date, and extra cleaning and disinfecting tasks were not recorded.

What inspectors praised
  • Staff infection control training

    Staff had infection control training and could explain how to use PPE correctly. Appropriate PPE supplies were available.

    “Staff received training in infection prevention and control and were able to describe the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
  • Testing and visiting

    Regular COVID-19 testing was in place for residents and staff. The home created a separate visiting area so relatives could visit safely.

    “People were supported to see their relatives safely. The provider adapted one of the ground floor bedrooms into a designated visiting area” from the report
  • Support from health professionals

    Staff said they received good support from local health professionals.

    “Staff reported good support from the local health professionals.” from the report
  • Extra isolation measures

    The home described extra PPE, separate laundry bags and careful staff allocation for people who needed to isolate.

    “These included additional PPE, designated red bags for laundry and ensuring careful allocation of staff to reduce the risk of cross infection.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Outdated infection control policy

    needs fixing

    Inspectors were not assured that the infection prevention and control policy was current. The policies referred to government guidance that was no longer current.

    “We were not assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
  • Some infection control areas needed improvement

    needs fixing

    Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the premises layout and hygiene practices, and about preventing or managing infection outbreaks.

    “We were somewhat assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Has the infection prevention and control policy been updated since the inspection, and does it now use current guidance?
  2. 02Can you show us the records of additional cleaning and disinfecting tasks?
  3. 03What changes have you made to the layout and hygiene arrangements since inspectors were only somewhat assured about them?
  4. 04How do you now prevent and manage infection outbreaks, including the allocation of staff and use of isolation measures?
  5. 05What are the current arrangements for safe visits by relatives and visiting professionals?

This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four questions or provide an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of White Lodge Care Home

4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. February 2023Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at White Lodge Care Home →

  2. February 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at White Lodge Care Home →

  3. August 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. December 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. September 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. October 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. February 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.”
Lindsay C., about Peter W.
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Clare M., about Zion S.
See live-in carers near Windsor and MaidenheadProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.