CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whitehatch
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Fire evacuation plans were missing from the fire documentation bag, and staff could not explain how they would evacuate people safely. Cleaning, maintenance and staffing also needed improvement, although medicines were managed well.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some staff were overdue refresher training in areas including infection control, moving and handling and basic life support. Mental capacity assessments were not always specific to the decision being made, and people and relatives were not shown to be involved in care plan reviews.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- Staff were kind when they interacted with people, but many chances to engage were missed. Staff did not always follow people's preferences or promote their independence.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Communication plans were detailed and people were supported to keep in touch with families and follow their beliefs. However, keyworker meetings and care reviews did not happen as planned, and records did not show a wide range of activity choices.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The registered manager supported staff and wanted to improve the home, but quality audits had not identified important problems. CQC found that weak quality assurance put people at risk of poor-quality care.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and well-managed medicines, but safety, staffing, person-centred support and oversight were not consistent.
This was an unannounced inspection by two inspectors on 21 December 2021 and 04 January 2022. They spoke with people living in the home, staff and relatives. They observed care, a mealtime and the home’s environment, and checked care plans, staff records, medicines records and audits.
The home was not always safe. Fire evacuation arrangements were incomplete and staff could not explain how they would evacuate people safely. The home also needed cleaning, repairs and better maintenance. Staffing shortages meant staff sometimes had less time to engage with people.
Inspectors found kind interactions and good medicines management. However, people were not always involved in decisions or care reviews, their preferences and independence were not always promoted, and staff training and quality checks were not consistently effective.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The provider was asked for an action plan and CQC said it would monitor progress and return under its reinspection programme.
Medicines
Medicines were administered and recorded appropriately. Staff received training and had their competence checked before giving medicines.
“Medicines were appropriately administered and recorded. Detailed information was included in people's records of the medication they took, what the purpose of it was and the possible side effects.” from the report
Communication
People had detailed communication plans. Staff used pictures, signs and gestures to help people make choices.
“People had detailed communication plans in place. Information for people was provided in a pictorial and easy read format.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were supported to access healthcare professionals when needed. Relatives said they were kept informed about healthcare outcomes and plans.
“People had access to external healthcare professionals. Records showed that specialists had been sought when appropriate, such as opticians, dentists, chiropodists, as well as the mental health and positive behaviour support teams.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw some warm and friendly interactions. People also appeared well cared for, and relatives said staff helped them maintain their appearance.
“When we observed staff interacting with people they support, they were kind and caring.” from the report
Fire safety
seriousPersonal emergency evacuation plans were missing from the fire grab bag, and staff did not know how to use evacuation sledges or what procedure to follow. The manager took immediate steps after this was raised, but CQC recommended regular fire safety training and competence checks.
“The three staff we spoke to regarding fire safety were unable to tell us how they would safely evacuate people in the event of a fire.” from the report
Staffing and engagement
needs fixingStaffing levels were not always adequate because of recruitment difficulties and greater use of agency staff. Inspectors saw many missed opportunities for staff to spend time engaging with people.
“There are not enough staff which means there is not enough time to spend with people.” from the report
Choice and independence
needs fixingPeople were not always involved in decisions about their daily lives or care reviews. Staff did not consistently follow preferences or support people to develop independence.
“Regular staff knew people well but did not always involve them where possible in decisions about their daily lives or in reviews of their care and support plan.” from the report
Environment and infection risks
needs fixingThe home had poor decoration and maintenance, ineffective cleaning and worn moving equipment. Continence products were also stored visibly on the floor, which inspectors said was undignified and an infection control risk.
“There was evidence of ineffective cleaning within the service, and general poor decoration and maintenance of the environment.” from the report
Quality checks
seriousAudits and spot checks had not identified important problems with the environment, staff engagement, care plans and records. CQC said this put people at risk of poor-quality care.
“The lack of robust quality assurance meant people were at risk of receiving poor quality care.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every person has a current personal emergency evacuation plan in the fire grab bag?
- 02How are you ensuring staff know how to use evacuation equipment and have regular fire safety competence checks?
- 03What is the current staffing position, including use of agency staff, and how do you make sure people have enough time for activities and interaction?
- 04How are people and relatives now involved in care plan reviews, keyworker meetings and activity planning?
- 05What changes have been made to cleaning, repairs, moving equipment and quality audits since the inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care home, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection after the current registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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.
Every inspection of Whitehatch
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: OutstandingEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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.