Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Whittle Hall House Care Residence

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, February 2022

Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements, but this visit did not assess wider care.

This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.

The home had updated infection control policies, regular testing, enhanced cleaning and enough personal protective equipment. Inspectors were assured that the home was using these measures safely and effectively.

People were supported to keep in touch with relatives. There was an outdoor visiting area and indoor visits were also supported. The home met the requirement about COVID-19 vaccination for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.

The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or assess the other areas of care.

What inspectors praised
  • Updated infection control

    The home had policies and procedures for managing COVID-19 risks and updated them when national guidance changed.

    “The policies and procedures were updated regularly following any changes in national guidance.” from the report
  • Testing and protective equipment

    There was regular testing for people living in the home, staff, essential carers and visitors. Inspectors also found that PPE was available and used appropriately.

    “There was a robust programme of regular COVID-19 testing for both people living in the home, staff, essential carers and visitors to the home.” from the report
  • Contact with relatives

    The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives through an outdoor visiting area and indoor visits.

    “People living in the home and their relatives were supported to maintain contact.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What arrangements are currently in place for COVID-19 testing, PPE and infection control?
  2. 02How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
  3. 03How can relatives visit now, and have the indoor and outdoor visiting arrangements changed?
  4. 04How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirements?
  5. 05When was the home's infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the wider areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2021

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed care, with some issues in recording thickener powder dealt with during the inspection.

This was an announced focused inspection on 11 January 2021. Inspectors checked staffing, medicines, infection control, safety systems and how the home was managed. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed records and monitoring information.

The home was rated Good overall. Safe and well-led were both rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection. People told inspectors they felt safe, staff answered call bells promptly and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.

Inspectors found caring and attentive staff, good communication with relatives and suitable infection control arrangements. They found some problems with the management and recording of thickener powder for people with swallowing difficulties, but staff took action during the inspection to reduce the risks.

What inspectors praised
  • Staffing and call bells

    People said staff came quickly when they needed help. Inspectors saw staff available throughout the visit, including for people who needed one-to-one support.

    “Call bells were answered promptly and people who were in communal areas were quickly assisted by staff when they needed help.” from the report
  • Medicines

    Medicines records had no gaps, and audits were used to identify and address problems. Staff administering medicines were described as competent and knew the people they supported.

    “There were no gaps in administration records which demonstrated people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
  • Communication with relatives

    Relatives said staff kept them informed during COVID-19 visiting restrictions and helped them stay in contact through calls, video calls and arranged visits.

    “Relatives told us they had good communication with staff about their loved ones whilst COVID-19 visiting restrictions had been in place.” from the report
  • Management and oversight

    Inspectors found the manager had good oversight of care quality and safety. Records were clear and well organised, and the provider had systems to monitor and improve the service.

    “The provider had robust systems in place to monitor, assess and improve the quality and safety of service being provided.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Thickener powder records

    needs fixing

    Inspectors found some problems with managing and recording thickener powder for people with swallowing difficulties. Staff and managers acted during the inspection to reduce the risks, but families should ask how this is now checked.

    “We found some issues with the management and recording of thickener powder for people with swallowing difficulties” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to the management and recording of thickener powder since the inspection?
  2. 02How do you check that people with swallowing difficulties receive the correct thickener safely?
  3. 03How are staffing levels monitored and changed when people's needs increase?
  4. 04How will you keep relatives informed about their family member's care and wellbeing?
  5. 05How are accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns reviewed to prevent them happening again?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and well-led only, prompted partly by concerns about staffing and medicines; the previous overall rating was Good and the other areas were not newly rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Whittle Hall House Care Residence

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

  1. February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Whittle Hall House Care Residence →

  2. February 2021Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Whittle Hall House Care Residence →

  3. June 2018Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. August 2017

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 August 2017.

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

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Warrington

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. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.

“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
John P., about Rodrigo Javier B.
See live-in carers near WarringtonProfiles, 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.