CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at White Pearl Residential Care
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, staffing was sufficient and infection control arrangements were judged satisfactory, although one medicine record was signed before the medicine had been taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. People received support with diet, health appointments and independence, although staff had not successfully found an NHS dentist for regular check-ups.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's needs and preferences. People could maintain relationships, follow their interests and raise concerns, which were dealt with informally.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had improved oversight, care planning and auditing. People, relatives and staff were involved in developing the service, and the culture was described as relaxed and friendly.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 12 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with nine people, the registered manager and two care staff. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, staff were kind, medicines were usually managed safely, and people were supported to make choices and become more independent.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach. They also found one medicines recording issue that was discussed with the registered manager.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff had safeguarding training. Risk assessments contained detailed guidance for staff.
“Staff had completed training on safeguarding and understood the signs of potential abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them calmly. People were treated with dignity and encouraged to make their own choices.
“People were looked after and supported by kind, caring staff who knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in planning their care and were supported with daily tasks, interests and future goals.
“People received personalised care that met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Improved management
The home had introduced audits and improved care planning, risk assessments and medicines management since the previous inspection.
“Auditing systems had been established in the updating and reviewing of care plans, environmental audits, and medicines audits.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingA staff member signed medicine records before people had taken their medicines. The manager agreed this was not correct and said the staff member would be reminded of the proper procedure.
“The staff member signed each entry on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) before the person had taken their medicine.” from the report
Access to a dentist
minorStaff had tried to find an NHS dentist so people could have regular check-ups, but this had not been successful.
“Staff told us they had tried to access an NHS dentist so people could have regular check-ups, but this had not been successful.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine records are signed only after each medicine has been taken?
- 02What is being done to help people obtain regular NHS dental check-ups?
- 03How often are care plans, risk assessments and medicines audits reviewed?
- 04How will you keep relatives informed if there is an incident or a change in someone's care?
- 05How are people supported to work towards greater independence and possible move-on options?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection to check an earlier Regulation 17 Warning Notice and infection control arrangements; the report still gives ratings for all five areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 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, February 2021
White Pearl Residential Care is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, consistent support but serious weaknesses in medicines, risk records and oversight.
This was a planned focused inspection on 16 October 2020. Inspectors spoke with five people, six staff members and four healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
People generally said they felt safe and were happy with staff. Inspectors saw person-centred support, good links with healthcare professionals, safe recruitment and enough staff. People were also supported with healthy eating, healthcare appointments and community links.
However, risk assessments did not always give staff enough guidance. Medicines were not always managed safely, including medicines affected by smoking and as-needed medicines. Infection control was not always followed, and most staff had not completed training in mental health or substance misuse at the time of the inspection.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, and for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so earlier ratings were used. The home had received Requires Improvement at the previous two inspections and had held that rating for three consecutive inspections.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Consistent staff team
The home had enough staff and did not need agency staff. People and healthcare professionals valued the continuity.
“We were told and we observed that the service had a consistent staff team and did not need to use agency staffing.” from the report
Healthcare partnerships
The home worked regularly with healthcare professionals and continued to support reviews and appointments during lockdown.
“Records showed that there were good communication links with healthcare professionals and others, including statutory and community agencies.” from the report
Healthy eating support
People were offered food choices, including vegetarian options, and several people experienced positive weight loss.
“The provider had encouraged people to develop healthy eating routines throughout lockdown.” from the report
People involved in the home
People took part in residents' meetings and helped improve the garden, including work on a greenhouse and water feature.
“People spoke with great pride about their work” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousSome medicines were not properly monitored or recorded. This included risks linked to smoking, possible side effects and as-needed medicines.
“People did not always receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousSome risk assessments were missing or did not explain the risks and actions staff should take. This could lead to inconsistent support.
“Risk assessments were not always in place or did not contain adequate information to provide staff with information to mitigate risk.” from the report
Abuse notifications
seriousThe provider had not notified CQC about allegations or potential allegations of abuse, despite this being required.
“The provider had not informed CQC of allegations of abuse or potential abuse.” from the report
Staff specialist training
needs fixingAlthough mandatory training had been completed, most staff had not received recent training in mental health conditions or substance misuse.
“The majority of staff had not had effective training to meet the specific needs of people.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits and reviews did not identify the problems found by inspectors. The provider had not fully addressed similar concerns from the previous inspection.
“Quality assurance systems were not effective so improvements could not be identified or completed.” from the report
PPE use
needs fixingStaff were not always wearing masks correctly during the pandemic. The home said this was corrected after the inspection.
“The provider was not always using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the way medicines are monitored, especially for people who smoke or use as-needed medicines?
- 02How are missing or incomplete risk assessments being reviewed, and how will staff know what action to take?
- 03Have all staff now completed mental health and substance misuse training, and how is this checked?
- 04What quality checks are now used to identify medicine, risk-record and safeguarding problems?
- 05How are people currently supported to work towards greater independence, including preparing food and developing life skills?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection control; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their earlier ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 2021 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 Residential Care
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at White Pearl Residential Care →
- February 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at White Pearl Residential Care →
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 October 2017.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.