CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whitehouse Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found risks were reviewed, staffing was sufficient, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were effective. Accidents and incidents were monitored so lessons could be learned.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care based on assessed needs and staff had suitable training and support. Food choices, health care and consent were handled well, although some parts of the environment needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and compassionate. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, independence and people's choices were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and records were reviewed. People had activities, contact with relatives and friends, support with communication and end-of-life care arrangements.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Leaders were visible and staff worked well together. Quality checks, feedback and reviews of incidents were used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some parts of the environment still needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over 16 and 21 September 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also checked care records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines systems, good health care support and care that respected people's choices and independence.
People and relatives were very positive about the care. Staff knew people's needs, responded to concerns and provided activities and support to maintain relationships. The report also says some parts of the building needed improvement, with a plan in place for future work.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 23 November 2018.
Safe care and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills and experience. Risks, medicines, recruitment and infection control were managed safely.
“There were enough staff on duty who had the right skills and experience to safely care for people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff listened to them and supported their choices. Inspectors observed respect for privacy, dignity and independence.
“Dignity and privacy were maintained at all times. People were encouraged to be as independent as they could be.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs and kept care records under review. People were involved in decisions about their care and daily life.
“People received individualised care and support from staff who knew their needs well.” from the report
Good health and food support
Staff worked promptly with health professionals and understood people's nutritional needs. People had choices about menus and regular drinks and snacks.
“Staff worked with professionals to make sure people's care needs were met.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in regular activities, spend time in the community and maintain contact with relatives and friends.
“There were regular activities available to people to maintain their social contact.” from the report
Positive management
The staff team worked well together, and quality checks and feedback were used to improve care.
“Quality assurance monitoring systems supported continual improvement at the service.” from the report
Some environmental improvements still needed
needs fixingInspectors noted that some parts of the environment needed improvement. A plan was in place, but the report does not say which improvements had been completed.
“Other areas of the environment needed to be improved.” from the report
- 01Which parts of the environment needed improvement, and what work has been completed since the inspection?
- 02What activities would be available for my relative, and how would staff support their interests and contact with family or friends?
- 03How would staff record and review my relative's individual care needs and preferences?
- 04How would the home respond if my relative became unwell, and how would it work with their GP or other health professionals?
- 05How does the home check that medicines are administered safely and that staff remain competent?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that considered all five CQC questions and included infection prevention and control checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 October 2021 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, November 2018
Whitehouse Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some records and auditing needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 26 October 2018. The inspector reviewed care, medicines, staff records, policies and management information. They spoke with people living there, a relative, staff and other professionals, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were kind, medicines were managed safely, care plans were individual, and people had activities and choices.
There were some shortfalls. Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not recorded in the care records inspected. Some windows were not initially secured safely, and formal auditing tools were missing for medicines, health and safety and infection control. The provider took or said it would take immediate action on these points.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors staff were caring. Inspectors saw staff offering comfort, respecting privacy and supporting people’s independence.
“People were cared for in a way that upheld their dignity and maintained their privacy.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff were trained to administer medicines and their competence was checked regularly. The provider supplied a completed medicine audit after the inspection.
“The provider had systems and processes in place for the safe management of medicines.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s needs, communication needs, likes and dislikes. Staff were knowledgeable about how to support each person.
“Care plans were individual to the person and included information on how to meet people's needs.” from the report
Activities and social life
People could take part in quizzes, singing, exercises, games, outings and entertainment. Events were also planned for people and their families.
“This included quizzes, sing a longs, hoopla, chair exercises, bowling in the grounds and singers and musicians coming into the service to entertain people.” from the report
Positive relationships
Inspectors saw friendly conversations, laughter and positive relationships between people and staff.
“Throughout the inspection, we saw examples of a family atmosphere where relatives, people who used the service and staff had conversations, laughed and showed they cared for each other.” from the report
Windows needed securing
seriousA small number of windows were not secured as safely as they should have been when inspectors visited. The provider took immediate action and later confirmed all windows had been secured.
“During the inspection we walked around the service and found a small number of windows were not secured as safely as they should be.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThe care records inspected did not formally record mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions. The provider said immediate action would be taken.
“However, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not formally recorded within the care records we looked at.” from the report
Formal audits
needs fixingChecks were carried out, but there were no formal auditing tools for medicines, health and safety or infection control at the time of inspection. The provider later sent completed audits.
“The provider did not have a formal auditing tool for health and safety and infection control.” from the report
Laundry skirting
minorThe laundry floor had recently been replaced, but skirting was still needed where the floor met the walls. The provider knew this needed to be done.
“The laundry flooring had just been replaced and skirting was still needed to be fitted where the floor met the walls.” from the report
- 01How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded now?
- 02How often are medicine checks and formal medicine audits completed?
- 03What formal health and safety and infection control audits are now used?
- 04Can you confirm that all windows remain safely secured?
- 05Which activities are available for someone with my relative’s interests and needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas, and the report says the overall Good rating had remained unchanged since March 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 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 Whitehouse Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2014.
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
31 live-in carers within about an hour of Redcar and Cleveland
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 £1,280 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.