CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at White Plains Care Home
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing arrangements, medicines procedures, infection control and safety checks were generally effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had good outcomes and received suitable training, food and drink support, consent arrangements and access to healthcare. Inspectors noted less interaction during one dementia-suite mealtime and a lack of condiments, which the home said it would address.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Staff built compassionate relationships and knew people's backgrounds, needs and preferences very well. People were treated with dignity, involved in decisions and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised and adapted as people's needs changed. Activities, communication, community links and end-of-life support were tailored to individuals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had visible leadership, a positive staff culture and effective provider audits. However, the registered manager was behind with some planned audits, and there was no recorded comparative analysis of falls over time.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring and responsive support, with some records and monitoring needing improvement.
This was a planned inspection over two days. It was unannounced on the first day. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective and well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, detailed risk assessments and good support from healthcare services. The home was clean and staff received training and supervision.
The home was rated Outstanding for caring and responsive care. Inspectors found warm relationships, strong knowledge of people's individual needs, meaningful activities and sensitive support at the end of life. People and relatives said they felt listened to and involved.
The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection in April 2016. Inspectors identified some areas to improve, including the analysis of falls and keeping management audits up to date, but found the legal requirements were met.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw relaxed, positive relationships between people and staff. Staff showed detailed knowledge of people's lives, preferences and emotional needs.
“People and relatives consistently told us they felt at ease due to the open atmosphere and the trust and confidence established with staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records contained detailed information about people's history, choices, communication needs and support strategies. Staff used this information to adapt care as needs changed.
“Without exception, service assessments gathered very detailed information about people's backgrounds, protected characteristics, interests and preferences to meet their needs.” from the report
Good healthcare coordination
Healthcare professionals said staff noticed changes quickly, made appropriate referrals and followed treatment plans. Records supported communication between the home and healthcare services.
“There is very good continuity of staff, they pick up on early warning signs and refer quickly.” from the report
Strong involvement
People and relatives were involved in meetings, daily choices and some staff recruitment. The home acted on suggestions, including plans to improve the garden.
“A relative told us, "I feel listened to and included, I can voice anything at all and it's acted upon.” from the report
Falls monitoring
needs fixingThe home reviewed individual falls but did not analyse patterns across time, such as types of falls, injuries or time of day. Inspectors said this could help improve falls prevention.
“There was not a recorded system in place for comparative, thematic analysis of falls across time” from the report
Management audits were behind
needs fixingThe registered manager was behind with the planned schedule of audits. An action plan was in place to catch up, but this could delay identifying wider trends.
“Records demonstrated and the registered manager stated they were behind with their own schedule.” from the report
Mealtime experience
minorDuring one observation in the dementia suite, inspectors saw less interaction between people and staff than at other times, and condiments were not provided. The home said it would follow this up.
“We observed there was less interaction between people and staff compared to other times and we noted condiments were not provided in the dementia suite.” from the report
Fire report filing
minorA copy of a recent fire service assessment was not initially held on file, and the manager could not say whether it identified actions. This was corrected during the inspection and actions were met.
“However, a copy of this was not held on file and the registered manager was not able to tell us if any actions had been identified.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the way you analyse falls across time, including injuries, patterns and time of day?
- 02Are the registered manager's planned audits now up to date, and how are wider risks or trends identified?
- 03What changes were made after the inspectors observed less interaction and no condiments during a dementia-suite mealtime?
- 04How are each person's communication needs recorded and shared with all staff?
- 05The report says the home does not provide nursing care. How would you support my relative's specific health needs and when would outside nursing support be involved?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home and covered all five CQC questions, including care, premises and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 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.
Every inspection of White Plains Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- May 2019Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.