CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Worting Road (The Whispers)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks to their health and wellbeing were assessed. Medicines, the building, emergencies, recruitment and incidents were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home had corrected the previous recording problem around mental capacity and best interest decisions. Staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with their health, nutrition and hydration.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and understood people's individual needs. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and keep relationships with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were detailed, personal and regularly updated. People were supported with their routines, hobbies, communication needs and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff were described as supportive, open and committed to people. Regular checks, meetings, surveys and audits were used to monitor the service.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Worting Road (The Whispers) was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
The CQC carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 26 June 2018. One inspector spoke with people, staff, a visiting professional and relatives. They also observed care, meals and medicines, and checked care records, staff files, policies, incidents and audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, supported to manage risks and given medicines safely. Staff were trained and supported, and people were helped with their health, food and drink.
Staff were kind and respected people's choices, privacy and independence. Support plans were detailed and activities reflected people's interests. The home had a quality monitoring system and the report found no serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm, positive relationships between staff and people. Staff gave people time to respond and supported them without rushing.
“Staff interacted with people respectfully and when they spoke about people there was a genuine warmth and respect in their tone.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans included people's preferences, cultural and spiritual needs, routines and interests. Staff knew people well and responded to their requests.
“People received support that was individualised to their personal preferences, needs and cultural identities.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Risks such as choking, falls, medicines, behaviour and fire safety were assessed. Staff were trained to give medicines safely and checks were carried out.
“People received their medicines safely and when they were required.” from the report
Good support for choice
People were helped to make decisions and retain as much independence as possible. The home involved people, families and professionals in more complex decisions when needed.
“Staff promoted people's rights to make decisions for themselves.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the two staff vacancies covered now, and when are agency staff used?
- 02How will you assess and record my relative's capacity and best interests for decisions about money, medicines and healthcare?
- 03How will my relative's hobbies, routines and preferred activities be included in their support plan?
- 04How do you update families when a person's health needs or support plan changes?
- 05How are complaints recorded, investigated and shared with families?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas; some people could not speak with the inspector, and no Provider Information Return was requested. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 July 2018 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, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, but the home needed to improve consent and independence decisions about medicines and money.
This was an unannounced inspection over 23, 24 and 26 August 2016. The inspector spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked support plans, medicine records, staff files, rotas, incidents and quality checks. Seven people were living in the home at the time.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement because records did not always show that people had been properly assessed about managing their own medicines and money, or that decisions made for them were in their best interests.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines handling, suitable recruitment, kind staff and a wide range of activities. They also found detailed personalised support plans, regular health support and a manager who promoted people's independence.
The home breached Regulation 11 about consent. The provider was asked to explain what action it would take, and the CQC said it would check that action.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. The home did not use agency staff, helping to provide familiarity and consistency.
“People were assisted by sufficient numbers of staff to be able to meet their needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's communication, preferences and emotional needs. They supported people with patience, dignity and respect.
“Staff were compassionate and caring in their approach with people supporting them in a kind and sensitive manner.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to take part in activities that matched their interests and to spend time in the community. Staff also offered alternatives when people did not want to join an organised activity.
“People were assisted by staff who actively encouraged people to participate in activities to allow them to lead full, active and meaningful lives.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans included people's histories, health needs, preferences and routines. Staff used these plans to provide individual care and respond to changing needs.
“People received consistent personalised care and support.” from the report
Consent and best-interest records
seriousThe home had not always recorded capacity assessments and best-interest decisions for medicines and money. This meant it had not shown that it was following the required consent process or supporting independence in these areas.
“There was no evidence that where MCA assessments and best interest decisions were required, and people may have been able to give their consent, that the service had acted in accordance with the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Staff understanding of provider values
minorStaff could explain the manager's expectations about care and independence, but they could not explain all of the provider's stated values. These values had only recently been sent to the home for display.
“Staff were not able to discuss the provider's visions or values” from the report
- 01How do you assess whether my relative can manage their own medicines and money?
- 02Where my relative lacks capacity, how do you record and review best-interest decisions?
- 03How do you involve relatives or other suitable people in decisions about medicines and finances?
- 04What support do you offer to help people develop or keep independent living skills?
- 05How do you make sure activities continue to match each person's interests and changing wishes?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing seven people's support plans, care records and medicine records. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2016 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 Worting Road (The Whispers)
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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
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.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.