You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Whitelow House Nursing Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 17 May 2017

The inspection visit at Whitelow House Nursing and Residential Home took place on 03 April 2017 and was unannounced.

Whitelow House Nursing and Residential Home is a 32 bed care home with nursing, situated on Morecambe seafront. A passenger lift is available allowing access between the four floors. It offers both long term and short-term care. At the time of our inspection visit, 32 people lived at the home.

There was a registered manager and they were present during our inspection visit. 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.

During this inspection, we walked around the home, found it clean, and maintained to a safe standard. We noted the provider had systems that ensured people who lived at the home were safe. We found staff were knowledgeable about the support needs of people in their care. They were aware of what help people needed to manage risks and remain safe.

Records we looked at indicated most staff had received safeguarding training related to the identification and prevention of abusive practices. They understood their responsibilities to report any unsafe care or abusive practices related to safeguarding of adults who could be vulnerable.

New staff had safeguarding training identified, planned and booked by the registered manager. Staff we spoke with told us they were aware of the safeguarding procedure and knew what to do should they witness any abusive actions at Whitelow House Nursing and Residential Home.

The provider had recruitment and selection procedures to minimise the risk of inappropriate employees working with people who may be vulnerable. Checks had been completed prior to any staff commencing work at the service. This was confirmed from discussions with staff.

We found staffing levels were suitable with an appropriate skill mix to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. The deployment of staff was comprehensively organised directing staff with their allocated tasks.

Staff responsible for administering medicines were trained to ensure they were competent and had the skills required. We investigated and noted medicines were kept safely and appropriate arrangements for storing medicines were in place.

Staff received training related to their role and were knowledgeable about their responsibilities. They had the skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and support needs.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in their care and had discussed and consented to their care. We found staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People who were able told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. We saw regular snacks and drinks were provided between meals to ensure people received adequate nutrition and hydration.

Care plans were organised and identified the care and support people required. We found they were informative about care people had received. They had been kept under review and updated when necessary to reflect people’s changing needs.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

Comments we received demonstrated people and their relatives were satisfied with the care delivered. The provider and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They were committed to providing a good standard of care and support to people who lived at the home.

We found people had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. We saw the management team had responded pro

Inspection areas



Updated 17 May 2017

The service was safe.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding and were knowledgeable about abuse and the ways to recognise and report it.

Risks to people were managed by staff, who were aware of the assessments to reduce potential harm to people.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs, wants and wishes safely. Recruitment procedures the service had were safe.

Medicines were managed in a safe manner.



Updated 17 May 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had the appropriate training to meet people’s needs.

There were regular meetings between individual staff and the management team to review their role and responsibilities.

The registered manager was aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS). They had knowledge of the process to follow.

People were protected against the risks of dehydration and malnutrition.



Updated 17 May 2017

The service was caring.

Our observations showed people were treated with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care. This was confirmed by talking with people and their relatives.

Staff had developed positive caring relationships and spoke about those they cared for in a warm, compassionate manner.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and the support they received.

End of life care was valued as part of a person’s care plan.



Updated 17 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs, likes and dislikes.

The provider organised activities to stimulate and maintain people’s social health.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint and felt confident any issues they raised would be dealt with.



Updated 17 May 2017

The service was well led.

The registered manager had clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

The registered manager had a visible presence throughout the home. People and staff felt the management team were supportive and approachable.

The management team had oversight of and acted to maintain the quality of the service provided.

The provider had sought feedback from people receiving support, their relatives and staff.