CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Whitecliffe House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. This included visiting, distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Whitecliffe House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control practices.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 August 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures as part of CQC’s coronavirus thematic review.
Inspectors found clear visiting arrangements, good cleaning practices and suitable plans for isolating people if there was an outbreak. They were assured that visitors, new admissions, people living in the home and staff were protected through hygiene, distancing, protective equipment and testing arrangements.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five questions. It is not a full assessment of all aspects of care.
Managed visiting
Visits were arranged in advance and visitors completed health checks before being given the required protective equipment.
“Visits were by appointment only and were carefully managed to ensure they met the latest best practice guidance.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
The home was clean and had extra cleaning for frequently touched surfaces. Managers also carried out checks on infection control.
“The cleaning schedule included general cleaning and advanced cleaning for high touch point areas such as light switches, handrails and door handles.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had identified an area where people could be isolated safely if an outbreak occurred. Its admission checks included people’s needs, test status and risks linked to where they came from.
“The Registered Manager and Quality Manager had worked together, and consulted with people, relatives and staff, to identify an area of the home that could be used to safely isolate people if they had an outbreak.” from the report
Keeping people connected
People were encouraged to use the outdoor space and take part in activities. Tablets and mobile phones were provided to help people stay in touch with family and friends.
“In addition, the home had purchased tablet computers and mobile phones to facilitate contact between people and their family and friends.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently arranged, and what checks and protective equipment are required?
- 02What cleaning schedule is currently used for frequently touched surfaces, and how is it checked?
- 03What area would be used to isolate people if there were an infection outbreak?
- 04How do you assess people before admission, including their recent test status and any risks linked to where they are coming from?
- 05What current information can you provide about care areas that were not covered by this inspection, such as medicines, staffing and activities?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 September 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.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Whitecliffe House was rated Good overall, with kind and safe care and a few areas needing tighter follow-up.
The inspection was unannounced on 21 March 2018 and continued on 22 March 2018 with notice. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and other professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training and prompt access to healthcare. People were treated kindly, involved in decisions and offered activities and personalised support.
There were some smaller issues to address. The home needed to record why some best-interest decisions were the least restrictive option. Managers also said they would assess the risks from visiting dogs, and the home was arranging specialist checks for equipment maintenance.
Kind and compassionate staff
People and relatives described staff as friendly, kind and caring. Inspectors also saw relaxed, reassuring interactions.
“People and relatives told us that staff were kind and compassionate in their approach.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were given as prescribed and records were accurate. Inspectors also found enough staff to meet people's needs and prompt responses to call bells.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and these were recorded safely.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were planned around people's interests and feedback. People who did not join groups could receive regular one-to-one time.
“There was regular one to one time planned to ensure that people who chose not to take part in any group activities were not socially isolated.” from the report
Involvement in care
People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews. Records were updated when needs changed.
“People were involved in reviews and decisions about their support.” from the report
Open management and improvement
Staff felt supported and people and relatives found the manager approachable. The home used surveys, meetings and audits to plan improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were regular and effective.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingSome records did not explain which other options had been considered or why the chosen decision was the least restrictive. Managers said they would include this reasoning in future decisions.
“Explanations did not always include other options considered or details about why the outcome chosen was the least restrictive option for the person.” from the report
Risks from visiting dogs
minorInspectors saw visiting dogs jump onto people's laps. People enjoyed this, but the report says there was a possible injury risk for people with fragile skin.
“Sometimes the pets could be excitable and were seen to jump on to people's laps.” from the report
Equipment maintenance checks
minorThe home did not have someone with the skills to audit equipment maintenance at the time. The provider had arranged help from another service and ordered replacement equipment where needed.
“The service had identified that they did not have anyone skilled to be able to audit the maintenance of the equipment.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the other options considered when making a best-interest decision?
- 02How do you explain and review why a best-interest decision is the least restrictive option?
- 03What risk assessment is now in place for visiting dogs, especially for people with fragile skin?
- 04Who checks the maintenance and safety of care equipment, and how often?
- 05How were the planned changes to the management team completed, and who is responsible for the home now?
This was a planned inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC areas, including care, premises, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 May 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 Whitecliffe House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 January 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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.