CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whitley Farm
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about visitors, admissions, testing, vaccination checks and the infection control policy. They were only somewhat assured about social distancing, outbreak management, PPE use and the layout and hygiene of the premises.
- 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, March 2022
Whitley Farm had a targeted infection control inspection and was not rated; inspectors found many safeguards but some training and laundry arrangements needed improvement.
The inspection took place on 20 January 2022. It was announced 24 hours in advance and focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 outbreak, as well as staffing pressures.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, testing, cleaning, admissions and vaccination checks. The home was clean and had enhanced cleaning for high-touch areas. Families could use virtual visits and alternative meeting spaces.
Some areas needed improvement. Records did not show how COVID-19 staffing pressures were being managed, PPE training was outdated or missing for some new staff, and the laundry area needed work. The manager took immediate action on the staffing records and had scheduled PPE training.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of the home's overall quality or all five CQC questions.
Visitors and family contact
Visits were not limited. Screening, PPE and alternative ways to meet helped maintain family relationships during the COVID-19 outbreak.
“Virtual visits had been promoted throughout the COVID-19 outbreak and alternative meeting areas could be arranged in isolated areas and outdoor spaces to help maintain meaningful family relationships.” from the report
Testing and admissions
The home had appropriate COVID-19 testing for residents and staff. The manager knew how to admit people safely and seek extra support.
“Appropriate COVID-19 testing was in place for staff and people living at the service.” from the report
Cleaning
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy, with enhanced cleaning and monitoring arrangements.
“The home was clean and tidy with enhanced cleaning in place which included all high touch areas.” from the report
Risk planning
Risk assessments had been developed for people and staff at higher risk, with actions taken to reduce those risks.
“Risk assessments had been developed for people and staff belonging to higher risk groups and actions had been taken to reduce risk.” from the report
Staffing records
needs fixingThe provider said it had measures to manage COVID-19 staffing pressures, but there was no written evidence. The manager acted immediately to correct this.
“The provider told us they had measures in place to mitigate the risks associated with COVID-19 related staff pressures, however they did not have documentation to evidence this.” from the report
PPE training
needs fixingStaff were wearing the correct PPE, but training was out of date or had not been given to some new staff. Training had been scheduled.
“Staff were seen to wear the correct PPE however; appropriate training was outdated or had not been provided to new staff members.” from the report
Laundry area
needs fixingThe home was clean and had robust cleaning procedures, but the laundry area needed improvement to support good practice.
“The home was clean with robust cleaning procedures in place however, the laundry area required improvements to promote good practice.” from the report
PPE stations
minorInspectors recommended more areas for putting on PPE to support safer practice during outbreaks.
“Additional donning stations were recommended across the home to help promote safety and good PPE practices.” from the report
- 01Has the PPE training that was outdated or missing for new staff now been completed?
- 02What changes have been made to the laundry area since the inspection?
- 03Have the additional PPE donning stations been installed?
- 04How are COVID-19-related staffing pressures recorded and managed now?
- 05How do you manage social distancing and isolation when these cause distress for residents?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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, April 2020
Whitley Farm is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but management changes were still being completed.
This was a planned inspection on 28 February 2020. One inspector spoke with two people using the home, five staff members, a health professional, a relative and a representative. They also reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The inspectors found that people were safe and treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's needs, supported them to make choices, build life skills and take part in the community. People were supported with health care, communication, relationships and activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous overall rating was also Good, published on 9 September 2017. The report says the new manager had completed induction but had not yet applied to register with CQC.
Building independence
People were supported to develop practical skills and make choices about their lives. This included learning about travel, money, cooking and road safety.
“People were encouraged to live as independently as possible. Staff worked with people to increase their independence.” from the report
Safe staffing
The inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staffing was reviewed each day and plans were in place for absences or sudden changes in support needs.
“There were enough staff to safely meet people's needs. Staffing levels were reviewed on a daily basis to meet people's changing needs.” from the report
Respectful care
People were involved in their care and staff respected their choices, including when they did not want to take part in care planning.
“People's input was recorded clearly in their care records and staff respected people's choice when they chose not to engage in the process.” from the report
Community involvement
People had daily activities and opportunities to join community events, education and voluntary work if they wanted to.
“People had opportunities to work as volunteers at local centres or shops if they wished to do so.” from the report
Manager registration
needs fixingThe registered manager had resigned shortly before the inspection. The new manager had started the registration process but had not yet submitted an application to CQC.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the CQC.” from the report
Shared values
needs fixingInspectors found that staff were not always fully aware of the home's vision and values. The provider said these would be refreshed in team meetings and supervision.
“Staff were not always fully aware of the visions and values of the service.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe service supported nine people, which inspectors said was larger than recommended by best practice guidance. They also noted the home had been made as homely as possible and had separate communal and outdoor areas.
“The service is larger than recommended by best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager now applied to register with CQC, and what is their current role in running the home?
- 02How are staff being reminded of the home's vision and values?
- 03How does the home provide enough personal space for each resident, given that the service is larger than recommended by best practice guidance?
- 04How are staffing levels adjusted when a person's support needs change at short notice?
- 05What opportunities are available for a new resident to build independence, take part in activities and work in the community?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises, with records, interviews and feedback from people, staff, relatives and professionals reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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.
Every inspection of Whitley Farm
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 April 2012.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.