CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whitebriars Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment, infection control and learning from incidents were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found the home was consistently managed, with regular audits, staff meetings, feedback systems and positive relationships with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with one mental-capacity record needing more detail.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 December 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, safeguarding records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, medicines were handled safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and risks such as falls and pressure sores were monitored.
The home was described as welcoming and person-centred. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management. One capacity assessment did not contain enough detail, but the manager took immediate steps to review and update it.
This was a focused inspection. The other three areas were not inspected, so their previous ratings were carried forward. The overall rating remained Good, as it had been at the last inspection published on 24 July 2018.
Protection from harm
Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report suspected abuse or wrongdoing. People and relatives said they felt safe.
“People lived in a safe environment and were protected from harm.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and given by trained staff who had regular checks. Records showed medicines had been administered correctly.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) had been completed correctly showing the name of the staff member administering the medicine, the date and time and the quantity given.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on each shift and saw call bells answered promptly. Recruitment records included checks and references.
“During our inspection we observed that call bells were answered promptly and people's needs and requests were dealt with quickly by staff.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Monthly audits looked for patterns such as falls and led to changes, including more sensor mats and checks on people at higher risk.
“Audits looked at patterns and trends which generated actions and learning for staff.” from the report
Feedback and leadership
People, relatives and staff had several ways to give feedback. Inspectors found the manager was visible, approachable and acted on concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they had opportunities to feedback about the service.” from the report
One capacity assessment lacked detail
minorOne record did not clearly set out the decision being assessed or who had been consulted about the person's best interests. The manager took immediate steps to reassess the decision and update the paperwork.
“We found one capacity assessment that lacked specific detail about the decision assessed and who was consulted in the person's best interests.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that mental-capacity assessments now contain the required detail and consultation records?
- 02How will you assess and manage my relative's individual risks, such as falls, pressure sores, nutrition or hydration?
- 03How many staff will usually be working on each shift, and how do you respond if staffing changes?
- 04How will medicines, including as-required medicines, be recorded and checked for my relative?
- 05How will you keep me informed about changes to care, visiting arrangements or any incidents?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found people were protected, but some care records and staff safeguarding knowledge needed improvement.
This was a targeted inspection on 12 and 13 November 2020. Inspectors followed up concerns about safety, risks, medicines, infection control and how the home was managed. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed the home and checked care, medicine, safeguarding, accident, complaint and audit records.
Inspectors found people were protected from harm and medicines were generally managed correctly. Infection control arrangements were largely effective, including PPE, testing, isolation and zoning. Staff knew people well and helped them stay active during lockdown.
There were some weaknesses. Some staff could not explain what they would do if there was a serious safeguarding risk, and some were not aware of the whistleblowing policy. Older paper care plans lacked important details, although a new electronic system was being introduced. Problems with medicine storage, medicine recording arrangements and some infection control equipment were addressed during the inspection.
The home was rated good at the previous inspection, published on 24 July 2018. This inspection was targeted, so CQC did not give new ratings and did not review the whole of the Safe or Well-led questions.
Staff understood people
Staff knew people's needs and adapted activities during lockdown, including garden walks for people who liked to walk.
“Staff knew people well and responded to their support needs.” from the report
Medicines were mostly well managed
Medicine records were completed correctly, staff had training and competency checks, and protocols were in place for medicines given only when needed.
“Medicines were managed correctly. We saw medication administration records (MAR) completed correctly” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured about PPE, testing, isolation, zoning and arrangements for visits during the pandemic.
“The service managed infection prevention and control well with appropriate use of personal protective equipment and compliance with the latest government guidelines.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
needs fixingSome staff could not explain what they would do if faced with a significant safeguarding risk. Refresher training was planned.
“Some staff members lacked knowledge about safeguarding, they were unable to explain what action they would take if confronted by significant risk.” from the report
Care plans were incomplete
needs fixingOlder paper care plans did not always describe people's needs, risks or changes in their care. The new electronic system was not yet fully in place.
“The paper copies lacked specific detail relating to people's needs.” from the report
Medicine storage and recording
needs fixingControlled medicines were not initially kept in a locked cupboard, and the medicine round meant records were not updated immediately. The manager addressed these issues during the inspection.
“We saw that controlled medicines were stored in a keypad locked room, but not within a locked cupboard within.” from the report
Some infection equipment
minorA bin had a broken lid and there was no PPE station on the second floor. These issues were addressed during the inspection.
“PPE stations were equipped with all necessary items but there was no PPE station on the second floor.” from the report
- 01Has the move from paper to electronic care plans been completed for every resident?
- 02How do you check that all staff understand safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures?
- 03Are controlled medicines now kept inside a locked cupboard?
- 04Is a medicine trolley being used so medicines can be recorded promptly?
- 05What changes were made after inspectors identified the broken bin and missing second-floor PPE station?
This was a targeted inspection of specific parts of Safe and Well-led during the COVID-19 pandemic; the other key questions were not assessed and the previous ratings were not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 2020 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 Whitebriars Care Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 November 2010.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East 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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.