CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whitfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and staff had guidance to manage them. Medicines records were accurate, recruitment checks had improved and there were enough staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received suitable training, supervision and induction. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare, their environment and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an effective quality assurance system and an improvement plan that had addressed earlier shortfalls. Staff, people and relatives were able to raise concerns and share views.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found that earlier problems had been improved, with safe medicines, enough staff and effective management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 July 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were recorded accurately, staff were safely recruited and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and personal choices. The building had been adapted for people's needs, and people and relatives were able to share their views.
The last inspection, published in December 2019, rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach of Regulation 17. The provider's improvement plan had worked, and the home was no longer in breach.
Safer medicines system
An electronic medicines system had been introduced to reduce errors and improve checks. Staff were trained to use it, and inspectors found the administration records accurate.
“Staff scanned a bar code on the box of medicine that was being given, if this was the wrong medicine the system alerted staff.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks had improved, and staff received training, supervision and induction.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs, staffing numbers were calculated by the registered manager, the number of night staff had increased since the last inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
People could choose where to eat and how to spend their time. Their rooms and the building had been adapted to help people feel at home and move around independently.
“People's rooms had been personalised with their photos and ornaments to help them feel at home.” from the report
Effective improvement work
The provider had acted on the previous inspection findings. Monthly checks and action plans were being used to identify and address shortfalls.
“The action plan had been effective, and shortfalls had been rectified and improvements maintained and embedded.” from the report
Fire safety work remained in progress
needs fixingThe fire risk assessment had identified shortfalls. Work was under way, including installing a new fire alarm system, so families should ask what has since been completed.
“Fire equipment had been checked regularly, the fire risk assessment had highlighted shortfalls which were being addressed including the installation of a new fire alarm system.” from the report
- 01Has the new fire alarm system been installed, and have all the fire risk assessment shortfalls been completed?
- 02How is the electronic medicines system checked now, and what happens if it identifies an error?
- 03What are the current staffing levels on days and nights, and how are they adjusted when people's needs change?
- 04How are people's views about meals, activities and daily routines collected and acted on?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Caring and Responsive, and when will those areas next be inspected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over from 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but weaknesses in medicines records, staff supervision and service oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 November 2019. One inspector spoke with people, a relative, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
People appeared happy, relaxed and comfortable. Staff were kind and respectful, understood people's preferences and supported activities, meals, healthcare and end of life wishes. The home had enough staff and care plans were detailed.
However, some medicines records were inaccurate and one person missed prescribed doses. Some staff did not receive regular supervision. Records did not clearly show what action had been taken after incidents or audits, or whether improvements had worked.
The overall rating fell from Good at the last inspection to Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive stayed Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The provider was asked for an action plan and CQC said it would monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff. Inspectors saw staff treat people as equals, respect their choices and protect their privacy.
“People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed preferences, such as when people liked to get up, where they liked to eat and how they preferred their rooms.
“Each person had a care plan that contained detailed guidance on how to support people.” from the report
Enough staff
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors saw staff respond quickly and spend time with people.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported with activities they enjoyed, trips into the community and relationships with relatives.
“People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Support with health and eating
Staff monitored people's health, referred them when needed and provided suitable meals, snacks and specialist diets.
“People were supported to eat a balanced diet.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousRecords did not always match what had happened. One person's morning medicines were not given because they were asleep, but the chart showed them as given. Another person missed lunchtime doses while out with relatives.
“One person had not received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff had received only one supervision during the year. This meant they did not consistently have recorded discussions about practice, training and development.
“Some staff had only one supervision this year.” from the report
Management records and action plans
seriousAudits found problems but did not clearly record who was responsible, deadlines or whether action had been completed. Records about engagement, staff support and recruitment were not consistently clear or accurate.
“The registered person had failed to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingRecruitment files did not always include references from previous social care employment or clear records of checks into applicants' employment history.
“There was limited information about the applicants conduct in their previous employment.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure every medicine dose is given or accurately recorded, including when someone is asleep or goes out?
- 02How do you now record falls and other incidents, and how do you check that any action taken has worked?
- 03How often does each staff member receive supervision, and can you show how training and development needs are followed up?
- 04What action plan is now in place after the Regulation 17 breach, with named responsibilities and deadlines?
- 05How have recruitment checks and references been strengthened since this inspection?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous Good rating from 2017 was reviewed and Safe, Effective and Well-led fell to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 2019 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 Whitfield
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 October 2016.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.