We carried out a review of the data available to us about The White House Care 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 The White House Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
The White House Care Home is a residential care home which specialises in supporting people with learning disabilities. The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
The White House Care Home is a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It is registered for the support of up to 9 people. Nine people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting in with the residential area and other domestic homes of a similar size. There were no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home.
People’s experience of using this service
People said they were safe at the service. Staff were trained to safeguard people from abuse and knew how to minimise identified risks to people’s safety. Health and safety checks were carried out of the premises and equipment to make sure they were safe. The premises were clean and tidy. Staff followed current practice to reduce infection and hygiene risks at the service.
There were enough staff to support people. Managers carried out checks on new staff to make sure they were suitable to support people. Staff were given relevant training to help them meet people’s needs. Staff were supported by managers to review and improve their working practices so that people experienced high quality care and support.
People had personalised their rooms and communal areas which created a homely and comfortable environment for people to live in. People took part in a range of activities and events and were encouraged to pursue their interests and hobbies. Staff supported people to build and maintain social relationships with others and the people that mattered to them.
People and their relatives were involved in planning and making decisions about the care and support they needed. People had current care plans which set out how their care and support needs should be provided. Staff knew people well and understood how their needs should be met.
Staff used people’s preferred method of communication when interacting and engaging with them. Staff were kind, friendly and caring. They supported people in a dignified way which maintained their privacy and independence. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were encouraged to keep healthy and stay well. Staff supported people to eat and drink enough to meet their needs and to take their prescribed medicines. We identified a medicines recording error. Managers said they would undertake weekly checks of medicines after this inspection to make sure records were maintained properly. People were able to access healthcare services when needed. Staff worked well with other healthcare professionals and acted on their recommendations. When people became unwell, staff sought help for them promptly.
People and their relatives had no concerns about the care and support provided by staff. They knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. Managers made sure any accidents, incidents and complaints were fully investigated and people were informed of the outcome. Learning from investigations was acted on and shared with staff to help them improve the quality and safety of the support they provided.
Managers undertook quality and safety checks of the service. Some of the formats used did not help managers identify areas where the service could improve further. Managers said they would review current arrangements to make sure they supported the service to continuously improve.
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to have their say about how the service could improve. Managers acted to make improvements and since our last inspection had introduced a new electronic records system. This had improved managers’ oversight of the service. Managers were looking for further ways to improve the service for people. They had plans to refurbish the premises with a view to making this more accessible and responsive to people’s changing needs.
Managers understood their responsibility for meeting regulatory requirements. They worked proactively with other agencies and acted on their recommendations to design the care and support provided to people.
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
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 30 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was planned based on the previous rating of ‘Good’.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor the service to ensure that people receive safe, compassionate, high quality care. Further inspections will be planned in line with our inspection schedule or in response to concerns.
At our last inspection on 24 July 2015 the service was rated good overall and for each of the five key questions. At this inspection we found the service remained good.
People felt safe at the service. There were sufficient staff on duty to support people during the day and at night. The provider continued to adhere to safe recruitment practices. Risks to people’s safety were identified and mitigated. Staff adhered to their responsibility to safeguard people from harm and had regular discussions with the provider about safeguarding procedures. People received their medicines as prescribed.
Staff were supported and encouraged to improve their knowledge and skills through regular training and supervision sessions. Staff adhered to the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The provider participated in local initiatives to further support people with their health needs and accessing healthcare services in a timely manner. People were supported with any nutritional needs and were encouraged to maintain a healthy balanced diet.
Staff built caring trusting relationships with people. They continued to support people to make day to day decisions and respected people’s choices. Staff maintained people’s privacy and dignity. The provider had engaged in a project with a local hospice to improve end of life care for people with long term conditions.
People continued to receive personalised care. Care plans provided detailed information about people’s needs and how they preferred to be cared for. People were encouraged to participate in local groups and undertake activities at the service and in the community. There continued to be a complaints process in place to ensure any complaints made were appropriately investigated.
There was clear management and leadership of the service. Staff felt well supported by the providers and said that they were accessible if they required additional support. There continued to be systems in place to review the quality of the service. The providers responded promptly to address the minor areas requiring improvement identified at the time of the inspection. There were processes in place to obtain feedback from people and relatives about the service. The providers continued to adhere to their CQC registration requirements, submitting notifications as and when required about key events that occurred at the service.
We visited the White House Care Home on 24 July 2015.
The inspection was unannounced. The last inspection took place on 9 January 2014 when it was found the service was meeting the regulations we inspected.
The service provides residential care and support for up to nine adults with learning disabilities.
The service had a registered manager. 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 at the service felt safe. Staff had completed safeguarding of vulnerable adults training and knew how to recognise and report any indicators of abuse. They knew how to escalate concerns. People’s needs were assessed and appropriate risk assessments developed. There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment procedures were followed. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.
Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver safe and effective care and support. Mental capacity assessments were completed to establish each person’s capacity to make decisions. Where it was necessary to deprive people of their liberty to deliver care and support the service had applied for authorisations under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had completed mental capacity training. People were supported to have a healthy diet and to maintain good health.
People and visitors commented positively about relationships with staff. People and their representatives were supported to express their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.
People received personalised care. Care plans were person centred and addressed a wide range of social and healthcare needs. Care plans and associated risk assessments reflected people’s needs, goals and preferences. People were encouraged to take part in activities that reduced the risks of social isolation.
Staff spoke positively about the management team who had an open door policy if people, visitors of staff wanted to speak with them. The service had formal and informal systems of audits to monitor and assess the quality of service they provided.
The manager told us that home's policy to do with staff training and staff supervision has been revised since the last inspection. We were told that staff now receive individual supervision monthly and have attended appropriate training that now meets the necessary requirements. Staff told us that they now received improved supervision and access to training. We saw evidence that demonstrated that staff had been on appropriate and relevant training since the last inspection.