We carried out a review of the data available to us about Whiteoaks Rest Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Whiteoaks Rest Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Whiteoaks Rest Home is a residential care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 38 older people. The home had two floors with lift and stair access to each floor. At the time of inspection 29 people were being supported.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People experienced care that was very personalised. The provider provided an extensive and varied range of activities enabling people to live fulfilled lives. There was a strong emphasis on inclusion within the home and ensuring activities were accessible to anyone who wanted to join in. There was a culture embedded, within the home of encouraging people to initiate and arrange activities of their own. The registered manager was passionate about promoting opportunities for people to experience community events and for everyone to have the opportunity.
The provider worked collaboratively with other healthcare professionals and were responsive to their advice. People's communication needs were fully considered so that information was given in line with their needs. The registered manager was pro-active in ensuring they were visible within the home and operated an open-door policy.
People and their relatives were positive about the quality of care and support people received. Care plans detailed people's preferences, emotional wellbeing support needs and cultural and spiritual needs. There was a strong emphasis on promoting people's independence. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. We saw a warm and caring approach by staff with positive and kind interactions between staff and people.
People and their relatives told us people felt safe. Risks to people were recorded in their care plans and there were systems in place to protect people from abuse. Staff were confident that concerns would be acted on. People received their medicines safely and staff completed training in infection control. Incidents and accidents were investigated, and lessons learnt shared. There was an emphasis on consistency of staff and there were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff involved people and worked with other organisations to ensure people received effective health care support. People were encouraged to maintain a healthy, balanced diet, based on their individual needs and could access food and drink when they wanted to.
The feedback we received from people and their relatives was positive, expressing confidence in management, leadership and care delivery. The registered manager promoted both formal and informal opportunities to ask people and their relatives for their views and suggestions. The home employed various methods to ensure people and their relatives were kept informed about what was happening in the home.
The service was led by a management team whose passion and drive to achieve excellence, leading by example, was evident. At the time of inspection, the registered manager was away from the service for a period of annual leave and whilst there was a deputy manager on site they did not have access to all information to be able to manage the home in the registered manager’s absence. The risk was mitigated by the registered manager being available to provide telephone support if required.
The registered manager promoted an inclusive, value based and positive culture. They were committed to developing and valuing staff. The provider had established strong links with the local community and the registered manager was passionate about continuous improvement.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 28 June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were supported by staff who had a good understanding of how to keep them safe, identify signs of abuse and report these appropriately. Robust processes to check the suitability of staff to work with people were in place. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs of people and they received appropriate training and support to ensure people were cared for in line with their needs and preferences.
Medicines were administered, stored and ordered in a safe and effective way.
Most risks associated with people’s care were identified and clear plans of care were in place to ensure staff knew how to mitigate these risks. Staff had a very good understanding of the risks associated with people’s care and how to ensure their safety and welfare of people. Incidents and accidents were clearly documented and investigated and work was in progress to review patterns and trends in these events. Actions and learning were identified from these and shared with all staff.
People were able to consent to and make decisions about their care and welfare. Staff had a good understanding of how to be guided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when people were not able to make informed decisions about their care.
People received nutritious meals in line with their needs and preferences. Those who required specific dietary requirements for a health need were supported to manage these.
A caring, family environment was promoted throughout the home and people were cared for in a friendly, calm and supportive way in line with their needs and preferences. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained and staff were caring and compassionate. People were encouraged to share their views of the home at meetings and through questionnaires. Staff knew people in the home very well and had a very good understanding of how to meet their individual needs.
Health and social care professionals were involved in the care of people when required and care plans reflected this.
Care plans in place reflected people’s identified needs and most of the associated risks. However for people who lived with some health conditions further information was required in plans of care to ensure staff had access to all the information they may require to monitor a person’s health and wellbeing. A new format of care plans had been introduced to provide clear and concise plans of care in line with people’s needs and preferences.
Effective systems were in place to monitor and evaluate any concerns or complaints received and to ensure learning outcomes or improvements were identified from these; although the home had received no formal complaints in the year previous to our inspection. Staff encouraged people and their relatives to share their concerns and experiences with them.
The registered manager was very visible in the service and provided strong and effective leadership. They promoted an ethos of family life and open and honest communication within the home. Staff felt respected and valued in the home and this was reflected in the way they supported each other and promoted person centred care for people.
A system of audits was in place to ensure the safety and welfare of people. Any actions required from these audits were completed promptly.