CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at White Pearl House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but serious safety, medicines, consent and management failures led to warning notices.
Inspectors visited on 21 and 22 November 2023. They spoke with one person using the home, three relatives and seven staff. They also checked the building, medicines, care records, recruitment, incidents, policies and quality checks.
The home was caring and responsive. People were treated with dignity, offered choices and supported to stay in touch with relatives and take part in activities. Staffing, recruitment, cleanliness and infection control had improved.
However, risks were not always identified or managed. Medicines were not always stored or given safely. Some consent records, capacity assessments and care plans were missing or incomplete. The provider's checks did not find or fix these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home remained in breach of regulations from the previous inspection, and CQC issued warning notices for safety and governance.
Kind, respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported choice, control and independence.
“People were treated well, and their individuality was respected.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs without rushing. Recruitment checks had been completed before staff started work.
“During our inspection, we observed sufficient staff were deployed to meet people's needs and people received support in an unrushed and timely manner.” from the report
Relationships and activities
The home helped people keep in touch with relatives and take part in activities suited to their interests.
“People were supported to maintain relationships, follow their interests and take part in activities that were relevant to them.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection. The home was clean and had enough protective equipment.
“People were protected from the risk of infection as staff were following safe infection and control practices.” from the report
Safety risks
seriousAn upper-level window could be opened wide enough for someone to climb out. Risk assessments, emergency evacuation plans and fire drills were missing or incomplete.
“We found a window above ground level that did not have a window restrictor in place.” from the report
Medicines
seriousInstructions for some medicines were incomplete, creams were not always recorded properly and the medicines room was too warm. Audits had not found these problems.
“Medicines were not always managed and stored safely.” from the report
Consent and capacity
seriousConsent forms and capacity assessments were not always recorded. Some conditions attached to restrictions had not been met, and CCTV consent and signage were missing until inspectors raised this.
“Consent to care forms were either not always in place or not always signed.” from the report
Inaccurate care records
needs fixingSome support plans did not accurately describe people's current needs or how to respond if their health changed. Oral health records also needed updating.
“Care records were not always person centred as they did not include accurate information on how to safely care for people.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's audits did not identify or address the problems found. There was also limited evidence that lessons were learned after incidents.
“The provider did not have an effective management structure and did not monitor the quality of care provided in order to drive improvement.” from the report
- 01What has been done to fit the window restrictor and provide emergency evacuation plans and regular fire drills?
- 02How are medicines now stored, temperature-checked and recorded, including as-required medicines, variable doses and topical creams?
- 03How do you make sure every person's capacity assessment, consent form and best-interest decision is complete and reviewed?
- 04How have support plans been updated to reflect current risks, health needs, oral health and what staff should do if health deteriorates?
- 05What independent checks now confirm that audits identify problems and that lessons are learned after incidents?
This inspection looked at all five CQC questions, the building and care provided, and followed up concerns and actions from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 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.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but serious gaps in recruitment, risk checks and quality monitoring.
This was the home’s first inspection. Inspectors visited on 22 November and 2 December 2022. They spoke with the one resident, a relative, staff and other professionals. They also checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, training, safety records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive care. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity, involved in decisions and supported to stay healthy, take part in activities and keep in touch with relatives. Staff understood people’s needs and worked with outside professionals.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Some staff had started work before all recruitment checks were complete. Some health and environmental risk assessments were missing. Medicines checks, infection control checks and wider quality monitoring were not strong enough.
The provider said it had taken steps to reduce the risks. CQC asked for an action plan and will monitor progress with the provider and local authority. This was the first inspection, so there is no earlier rating to compare.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people’s wishes and needs. People had choice and control over their daily lives.
“Support plans were person centred and reflected the wants and needs of the people using the service. People had choice and control over their daily lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw caring communication. Relatives also spoke positively about the support and contact from staff.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. We observed staff communicating in a caring and compassionate way with people that used the service.” from the report
Activities and community access
People were supported to take part in activities, use public transport and visit places in the local community.
“Staff supported people who used the service to achieve positive outcomes and attend meaningful activities in their local community.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals, including a GP, dietician, occupational therapist and social worker.
“Care records evidenced input from the occupational therapist, dietician, GP and social worker.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome staff started work before DBS checks or references were in place. Employment histories and interview records were also incomplete in some cases.
“Some staff members had started working at the service without a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) or references in place.” from the report
Missing risk assessments
seriousRisk assessments for some individual health needs and the environment were not in place. Inspectors also found missing evidence about electrical and legionella safety.
“Some risk assessments were in place and reviewed regularly. However, risk assessments for the environment and individual service user health needs were not in place.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousAudits for health and safety and infection control were not taking place. Medicines audits were infrequent and not robust enough to identify risks.
“There was no auditing or quality checks in place for key areas such as health and safety and infection control.” from the report
Infection control practice
needs fixingStaff were not wearing available PPE when inspectors arrived, and visitor infection screening was not in place. CQC made a recommendation about following current infection control guidance.
“When we arrived to inspect, staff members were not wearing any PPE. This was rectified during the inspection.” from the report
- 01Have all DBS checks, references, employment histories and interview records now been completed before staff start work?
- 02Which risk assessments were missing, and have the environmental and individual health risk assessments now been completed and reviewed?
- 03How often are medicines audits now carried out, and how does the home check that any problems are acted on?
- 04What infection control changes have been made, including PPE use, visitor screening and regular infection control audits?
- 05What action plan was sent to CQC, and what progress has been checked since the inspection?
This was the first full inspection of the care home and covered all five ratings, including infection prevention and control; one person was living there at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 January 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.
Every inspection of White Pearl House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2023Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 June 2021.
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 Blackburn with Darwen
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. 91 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.