Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Whiteoaks Rest Home

Goodpublished 7 July 2025, 15 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2020

Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care and outstanding activities, with a management cover issue identified during the visit.

This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 10 and 13 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and management records.

The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were rated Good. Responsive was rated Outstanding, improving from Good at the previous inspection in June 2017.

Inspectors found personalised care, respectful staff and safe medicines practice. People had many activities and were encouraged to create their own. The home also worked with health professionals and the local community.

During the inspection, the deputy manager could not access some staff files and quality records while the registered manager was away. The registered manager remained available by telephone and put measures in place afterwards to prevent this happening again.

What inspectors praised
  • Personalised care

    Care plans included people's routines, preferences, emotional wellbeing, cultural and spiritual needs. Staff knew people well and supported their independence.

    “People experienced care that was very personalised.” from the report
  • Activities and inclusion

    The home offered many activities and supported people to organise their own. Activities were adapted so people could join in, including people staying in their rooms.

    “There was a strong emphasis on inclusion within the home and ensuring activities were accessible to anyone who wanted to join in.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful staff

    Inspectors saw calm, warm interactions. Staff protected people's privacy and dignity during personal care and medicines support.

    “We saw a warm and caring approach by staff with positive and kind interactions between staff and people.” from the report
  • Community links

    The home brought events and experiences into the home and worked with local schools, colleges and artists. Relatives and friends were encouraged to attend events.

    “The provider had established strong links with the local community.” from the report
  • Safe care systems

    Inspectors found systems for safeguarding, risk management, medicines, infection control and learning from accidents and incidents.

    “People received their medicines safely and staff completed training in infection control.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Management cover

    needs fixing

    While the registered manager was away, the deputy manager could not access staff files or some quality assurance records. The registered manager was available by telephone, and changes were made after the inspection.

    “The deputy manager did not have access to the staff files or some of the quality assurance records.” from the report
  • Waiting after meals

    minor

    Some people sometimes waited after meals for help to move to where they wanted to go. The home responded by training maintenance and domestic staff to provide extra support at lunchtime.

    “Some people did tell us that they sometimes had to wait after their meal for staff to be available to support them” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Who has full access to staff files and quality records when the registered manager is away?
  2. 02What changes were put in place after the inspection to improve management cover?
  3. 03How long do people usually wait for help to move after meals, and how is this monitored?
  4. 04How would activities be adapted for my relative if they could not join group activities or leave their room?
  5. 05How are my relative's communication, cultural, spiritual and personal preferences recorded and reviewed?

This was an unannounced, planned inspection that considered the premises and care and rated all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good and Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, June 2017

Whiteoaks Rest Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some care records needing more detail.

Inspectors visited without warning on 16 and 17 May 2017. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints, accidents and quality checks.

All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable recruitment checks, good training and nutritious food. People were treated with kindness, respect and patience.

There were some gaps in care planning. Information about risks linked to some health conditions, including diabetes, was not always recorded in enough detail. Records did not always show when people had been involved in reviewing their care. The home had started introducing a new care plan format.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff taking time, protecting privacy and supporting people without rushing them.

    “People were valued and respected as individuals and were happy and content in the home where their privacy and dignity was maintained.” from the report
  • Staffing and safety

    There were enough staff, and recruitment checks were completed before staff started work. Staff understood safeguarding and responded promptly when people needed help.

    “There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs of people.” from the report
  • Medicines management

    Medicines were stored and given safely. Inspectors found no gaps in the medicines administration records they checked.

    “Medicines were managed in a safe and effective manner.” from the report
  • Food and choice

    People were offered choices at meals and specific dietary needs were recorded. Food was freshly prepared, with fresh fruit and vegetables available each day.

    “People were provided with nutritious meals in line with their needs and preferences.” from the report
  • Leadership and teamwork

    The manager was visible and staff felt supported and valued. Audits and systems were used to monitor the home and actions were completed promptly.

    “The registered manager was very visible in the service and provided strong and effective leadership.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Some health information was missing

    needs fixing

    Care plans did not always explain the risks and monitoring needed for some conditions, including diabetes. This could make it harder for staff to find all the information they need in the care record.

    “For people who lived with diabetes information relating to the risks associated with this condition, such as the need to maintain good foot hygiene and skin integrity and regular eye checks had not always been identified.” from the report
  • Care reviews were not always recorded

    needs fixing

    Care plans were reviewed monthly, but records did not show when people had been involved in those reviews. The home was working on a new format of care plans.

    “Care records showed staff reviewed plans of care monthly however there was no information to show when people were involved in this.” from the report
  • PRN medicine records

    minor

    Staff recorded when medicines prescribed for use as needed were given, but records did not always show whether they had been effective.

    “For medicines which were prescribed as required (PRN) we saw staff recorded when these were given although records did not always provide information on the effectiveness of the medicines.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How will you make sure care plans contain full information about conditions such as diabetes and Parkinson's disease?
  2. 02How are people and their relatives involved in monthly care plan reviews, and where is this recorded?
  3. 03How do you record whether medicines given as needed have worked?
  4. 04How are the new deputy manager and head of care sharing responsibilities since the home's expansion?
  5. 05How do you check for patterns in accidents and incidents, and what changes have followed this learning?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions and giving an overall rating; the report says the home had not been inspected since October 2013 because of a change in registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 2017 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Whiteoaks Rest Home

2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Whiteoaks Rest Home →

  2. June 2017Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Whiteoaks Rest Home →

  3. December 2015

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2015.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire

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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.

“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
Emily B., about Prisca S.
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Roderick N., about Jaison M.
See live-in carers near HampshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.