CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whitebourne
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, carried out testing, kept the premises hygienic and had arrangements to prevent and manage infection outbreaks. They also found that visiting arrangements followed government guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Targeted inspection; infection control and staffing arrangements were found to be in place, but the service was not rated.
Inspectors visited the home on 1 February 2022. This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. They looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures.
Inspectors found the home was clean and hygienic. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly. The home carried out testing, supported vaccination and had arrangements for people who tested positive or had symptoms.
The home had systems for safe visiting and had taken steps to reduce infection risks. Staff were generally assigned to one area where possible, which helped provide consistent support and reduce cross-infection.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide a new overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the key question of safety.
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic. Extra domestic staff supported continuous cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“The service was clean and hygienic. Additional domestic staff had been allocated to each shift to enable the continuous cleaning of high-touch areas” from the report
Infection control systems
The home had an infection control policy and carried out regular checks to maintain standards.
“Designated staff carried out regular IPC audits to ensure appropriate standards in this area were maintained.” from the report
Consistent staffing
Staff were assigned to one area where possible. Core staff worked extra hours and changed shifts to reduce the need for agency staff.
“The staffing model ensured people received consistent support and minimised the risk of cross-infection across the service.” from the report
Support for visiting
The manager used a person-centred approach to help people keep in contact with their loved ones during the pandemic.
“The registered manager had adopted a person-centred approach to supporting people to maintain appropriate contact with their loved ones throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visiting arrangements managed now, and how do you help residents maintain contact with their loved ones?
- 02How do you make sure staff use PPE correctly and that high-touch areas are cleaned regularly?
- 03How are staff allocated to different areas of the home when there are staffing pressures?
- 04What happens if a resident or staff member tests positive for COVID-19 or develops symptoms?
- 05How are best-interests decisions made if a resident cannot consent to testing or vaccination?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Rated Good and out of Special Measures; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care after seven legal breaches at the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 7 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, accident records, staff files, training records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were managed, medicines were given safely, staffing levels had improved and staff understood people's needs. People were treated with dignity and involved in choices about their care.
The previous inspection in April 2017 had found seven breaches involving safety, safeguarding, staffing, dignity, personalised care, management checks and notifications to CQC. This inspection found the provider had taken action to meet those requirements. The home had been in Special Measures but was no longer rated inadequate and had left Special Measures.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed giving calm, dignified support and taking time to understand people's histories, preferences and communication needs.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew their needs well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, routines and wishes. Staff responded to these and offered choices about food, activities and daily care.
“People's care was planned in a person-centred way. Staff responded to people's wishes and preferences and provided care that met people's individual needs.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found stronger management support, better communication and regular supervision. The home had introduced changes to staffing, training and management structure.
“Staff felt supported by management. There were significant improvements to staff support and communication.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in varied activities and suggest their own interests. Links with community organisations supported activities and dementia training.
“The provider had strong links with the local community.” from the report
Recent history of serious shortfalls
minorThe previous inspection found seven breaches of legal requirements, including failures involving safety, staffing, dignity and management checks. Inspectors said these had been addressed by this inspection, but families may wish to check that the improvements are lasting.
“Our last inspection was in April 2017 where we identified seven breaches of the legal requirements.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels and the use of temporary agency staff since the previous inspection?
- 02How are my relative's risks, including falls, skin integrity, nutrition or behaviour, assessed and reviewed?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's care plan is updated quickly if their health or needs change?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in decisions about food, activities and improvements to the home?
- 05What checks are carried out on medicines, care records and other areas, and how are any problems followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC key questions, including care, staffing, records, medicines, complaints and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 2018 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 Whitebourne
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“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.