CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Whitworth Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were kept safe, with suitable risk assessments, enough staff and safe medicines systems. Infection control arrangements had also improved since the previous inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supervision. People received support with food, healthcare, oral care and decisions about their care, including updated mental capacity assessments where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw calm, friendly and kind interactions. People were supported with dignity, privacy, independence and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences, important relationships and communication needs. People were supported to take part in activities, maintain relationships and make choices.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager had introduced regular audits and improved record keeping. Staff, relatives and people using the service were asked for their views, although there was not yet a registered manager in post.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with major improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection visit took place on 09 December 2022. One inspector reviewed care plans, risk records, medicines, staff files, training, audits and other management records. They spoke with three people living at the home, three relatives, two staff members, the manager and the team leader.
The home supports up to six adults with mild to moderate learning disability needs. All six places were occupied. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by enough staff, and received their medicines safely. Staff knew people's needs and supported their choices, dignity, independence, health, relationships and activities.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in September 2022. The previous breaches of regulations had been addressed, and the provider was no longer in breach. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored safely, stock records matched the medicines held, and records were checked by two staff and audited weekly.
“These records and Medication Administration Records (MARs) were signed by two staff and audited weekly by the manager.” from the report
Kind support
Inspectors saw staff speaking with people calmly and kindly. People appeared relaxed and readily approached staff for help.
“We observed staff interacting and speaking with people in a calm, friendly and kind way.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's preferences, likes, dislikes, communication methods and important relationships. People were involved in choices about their care and activities.
“People had individualised care plans that they were involved in drawing together with staff and their relatives.” from the report
Improved leadership
The new manager introduced audits, improved records and acted when issues were found. Staff and relatives reported a positive change.
“The new manager had implemented a new and wide range of service audits which included regular audits of medicines management, an infection control monitoring audit and a health and safety audit.” from the report
Registered manager not yet in post
minorThere was no registered manager at the inspection. The new manager was applying to register with CQC, so the provider remained legally responsible for how the home was run.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01How is the new manager's CQC registration progressing?
- 02How are the weekly medicines audits and daily stock checks being maintained?
- 03How will you make sure mental capacity assessments and DoLS applications remain up to date?
- 04How are people and relatives involved when care plans and risk assessments are reviewed?
- 05What activities and community links are currently available for a person with my relative's interests and communication needs?
This inspection looked at all five key questions and included infection prevention and control, with the previous Requires Improvement ratings reassessed after the provider's action plan. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 2023 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, September 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, staffed care but serious gaps in safety, consent and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 21 June 2022. One inspector spoke with two people, the registered manager and one care worker. They reviewed care records, medicines records, training records and management documents.
The home had enough staff, people received healthcare support and staff knew people's needs. The home was hygienic and well-maintained. However, inspectors found unsafe medicines systems, missing health and safety checks, weak infection risk assessments and poor monitoring of people's weight.
The registered manager and provider did not have enough oversight. Mental capacity assessments were missing or out of date, and some required notifications had not been sent to CQC. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, as were Safe, Effective and Well-led.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing numbers were sufficient and staff said they were not rushed.
“There were enough staff to care for people safely.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were supported to attend health appointments and the home worked with healthcare professionals.
“People were supported to meet their health needs and attend their health appointments including the GP, dentist and hospital specialists.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received induction, supervision and training about people's needs, including learning disability and autism.
“Staff told us they received regular training to understand and meet people's diverse needs including learning disability and autism training.” from the report
Positive relationships
People told inspectors they liked the home, staff and food. The home also sought views from people, relatives and staff.
“There were systems in place to ensure the service sought the views of people, staff and relatives through reviews, keyworker meetings, staff and resident's meetings and surveys.” from the report
Safety checks were missing
seriousThe home could not show that important electrical, fire, water safety and emergency evacuation checks had been completed. Inspectors said this increased the risk of harm.
“The registered manager did not ensure the necessary health and safety checks were regularly carried which increased the risk of harm to people and staff.” from the report
Medicines records and storage
seriousThe home could not be sure that all medicines were safely accounted for or stored at a safe temperature.
“Our checks of stocks and records showed the registered manager could not be sure people received their medicines safely as some medicines were unaccounted for.” from the report
Consent and capacity
seriousDecision-specific mental capacity assessments had not been completed for everyone who might lack capacity. One assessment had not been reviewed for 18 months.
“The registered manager was unable to show us decision-specific mental capacity assessments for all people who were suspected to lack capacity and told us they had not all been carried out.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits had not identified the problems found by inspectors. Records were poor or missing, and the provider had not made all the improvements promised after the previous inspection.
“At our last inspection we found the registered manager lacked sufficient oversight of the service. At this inspection we found this had not improved.” from the report
Infection risk assessments
seriousThe home had still not assessed infection risks for people and staff at higher risk of COVID-19. An infection control monitoring audit was also not in place.
“As the provider had not taken action to make the improvements required, the provider continued to remain in breach of regulation 12.” from the report
- 01Have all electrical, fire, water safety and personal emergency evacuation plan checks now been completed and recorded?
- 02How are medicines cabinet temperatures and 'as required' medicine stocks checked and recorded now?
- 03Have decision-specific mental capacity assessments been completed and regularly reviewed for every person who needs one?
- 04What infection risk assessments and infection control audits are now in place, including for people at higher risk of COVID-19?
- 05What action has been taken in response to the warning notices and the previous inspection action plan?
This was an unannounced focused inspection covering Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not rated, and the report says ratings for questions not inspected carry over from the last comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 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.
Every inspection of Whitworth Lodge
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Insufficient evidence to rateWell-led: Insufficient evidence to rate
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.