Whitehaven Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to consent.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always ensure people’s care plans contained sufficient detail.

People’s care plans were not always sufficiently detailed or reflective of people’s support needs. For example, 2 people’s care plans did not evidence their physical, health, wellbeing and communication needs had been fully assessed. This meant, staff did not have access to all relevant information to be able to support people effectively.

Staff told us they had experienced issues accessing care planning information on the provider’s new electronic care planning system. They had not received training in the use of the system. This meant they were not always able to access information about how to support people effectively and were unable to familiarise themselves with information about people who had recently been admitted to the service.

The provider did not always effectively use clinical assessment tools to assess people’s needs and develop their care plans. For example, 1 person’s falls risk assessment identified them as high risk, but there was no record of how this risk was to be managed. This meant the person could be at increased risk of falling.

However, the provider told us they assessed people’s needs prior to admission. Relatives confirmed this and they told us their loved ones had positive transitions into the service.

After the inspection, the provider subsequently submitted evidence of a policy related to assessing and meeting people’s needs and an admission policy, dated July 2025. However, these were not in place as required at the time of inspection. We could not be assured without the inspection these would have been created.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The provider did not always effectively assess, monitor or reduce risks related to malnutrition or dehydration. For example, 1 person was assessed as being at high risk of malnutrition, however, there was no written evidence or guidance for staff on how to support the person to reduce their risk in relation to this. This meant the person was at risk of their condition deteriorating.

Some people’s care plans stated they had their fluids monitored and fluid targets were set, regarding how much they should drink. We were not assured this monitoring was being completed effectively. For example, 1 staff member told us no one had a fluid monitoring chart. People’s care plans lacked sufficient detail and did not always state how to support people to reach their fluid intake targets. This meant people were at risk of not having their hydration needs met.

People were not always involved in planning the types of meals they would prefer. Staff told us the cooks, and the provider set the menus. The provider was not able to produce evidence to demonstrate people were involved in planning the menu. However, people were able to request an alternative meal if they did not want what was on offer. Relatives told us people were supported to follow a healthy diet.

However, the provider had ensured aspects of the environment were designed to support people living with dementia. For example, some people’s bedroom doors looked like front doors, to help them orientate themselves around the service.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

People’s care plans lacked detail and did not provide staff with sufficient written information to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. For example, 1 person’s care plan said they may display behaviour that could challenge staff. However, their care plan did not provide staff with written information about how to identify potential triggers prior to any challenging behaviours, or how to positively de-escalate the situation. Despite this, a staff member told us they had received relevant training and told us how they responded to the person’s needs. Staff lacked access to sufficient written guidance which meant should a staff member be supporting this person for the first time, they would lack the knowledge to support them effectively.

Partners told us the provider communicated with them effectively, and information they provided was passed on to the care staff. However, the provider was not able to demonstrate there were written records of processes in place to ensure any guidance or recommendations from partners were followed.

However, staff told us, and we observed, they communicated effectively with each other. For example, staff asked for assistance from each other before they supported people to transfer.

Relatives told us staff shared information both within the team and externally, to ensure people attended any appointments they required.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control.

People’s care plans did not always enable staff to effectively understand people’s healthcare needs. They did not include people’s preferences about how they would like their healthcare needs to be supported, or information about their level of independence in managing their health.

Staff did not always have access to healthcare guidance from partners. For example, where people had seizures, there were no written protocols from healthcare professionals for staff to follow, if people had a seizure. This meant people were at risk of receiving inappropriate or inconsistent care.

However, relatives told us staff contacted the GP appropriately and observations we made supported this.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

People’s care plans were not always reflective of goals or outcomes related to their care. The provider gave examples of people’s individual outcomes, however, there was not always documented evidence about how staff should support people to work towards these. For example, the provider told us 1 person’s planned outcome was to be able to be more independent with their personal care. However, this was not recorded in their care plan. This meant staff did not have the information or guidance to be able to support people to improve their outcomes.

The provider was not always able to evidence there were written records demonstrating how progress on outcomes was monitored or assessed. For example, 1 person had a target to reduce their risk of falls and trips, however, there was no written information or guidance for staff about how to support them to reduce this risk and achieve the outcome.

However, relatives told us staff supported people well, we identified examples where people were supported to work towards outcomes around monitoring their health and increasing levels of independence. For example, some people’s care plans evidenced their blood pressure and weight were monitored; and staff encouraged people to walk rather than use a wheelchair, although this was not always reflected in their care plan.

The provider did not always obtain people’s consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The provider was unable to demonstrate people had consented to their care. There was a lack of written evidence to show people who could consent to their care had done so.

Where people lacked capacity to consent to their care, written evidence of any mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions having been made on their behalf as legally required, was not provided.

Where people had a lasting power of attorney in place, we were not provided with written evidence to demonstrate they had been checked for their type, or whether they were valid and registered. Without these checks, there was a risk decisions may have been made about people’s care by unauthorised persons.

The provider did not always follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) as they had signed consent on behalf of others. For example, for 1 person, they had signed consent for photographs to be taken and for care to be provided, on behalf of the person’s legal representative. The provider should have ensured the legal representative signed.

However, after the site visits, in July 2025 the provider submitted evidence of a policy related to the Mental Capacity Act. However, this was not in place at the time of inspection. We could not be assured without the inspection this would have been created.

We observed staff asking people for their consent with their day-to-day care and support and relatives spoken to told us they were involved and consulted in decisions.