Whitehaven Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to governance at the service.

This service scored 54 (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 plans were person centred. The provider did not always provide written evidence to demonstrate how they worked in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff did not have access to people’s full care plans following a change of care planning system.

People’s care plans provided after the site visits still lacked sufficient information to ensure staff were informed about people’s individual needs. People’s care plans did not contain enough information about their physical, emotional and social needs, including those related to their protected characteristics. For example, people’s care plans did not always detail any needs related to their age or disability. Although staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s needs, any new or agency staff would not have the information required to support people effectively.

The provider told us they reviewed people’s care plans every 2 months, or when required, and said they asked people and their relatives if they wanted to be involved. However, we were not provided with written evidence to corroborate care plan reviews, or involvement with people and relatives had taken place. However, 1 relative told us they were involved in creating their loved one’s care plan. Staff therefore did not always have access to up-to-date information about people’s support needs.

Staff understood how to provide people with person centred care, we observed person centred interactions between staff and people throughout the inspection.

The provider understood the health and care needs of people, so care was flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People, staff and partners provided positive feedback. For example, 1 partner agency told us the service provided a detailed weekly update on all people who used the service.

Many staff had worked at the service for an extended time and had formed positive working relationships with people. The provider promoted continuity in people’s care by using regular agency staff when needed. This helped to ensure agency staff were familiar with people’s needs.

The provider did not always have appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information about people’s individual communication needs.

People’s care plans lacked sufficient information about their communication needs and did not meet Accessible Information Standards (AIS) requirements, such as identifying when a person needed support to communicate and guidance for staff around meeting these needs.

We found some examples where staff had effectively made adaptions to provide information to people in a format they understood. For example, there was a client information pack with easy-to-read safeguarding guidance for people.

However, we also observed some examples where people’s communication needs were not met. For example, people were provided with a written menu on the wall; however, it did not include pictures or photographs. This did not support people with dementia to understand the menu or communicate their preferences regarding their food choices.

However, we observed some examples of accessible information for people during the inspection. For example, there was a board with large print date and clock, a copy of the client information pack was available to people and bathrooms and toilets had both pictorial and written signage.

The provider reintroduced a newsletter for relatives at the time of the inspection, to inform and update them.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider failed to demonstrate they had a complaints policy or process in place. The provider told us they had not received any official complaints within the past year. However, we found limited evidence of how people’s feedback was captured, responded too and reflected upon.

The provider was not able to provide any written evidence meetings or surveys took place with people or relatives to provide them with regular opportunities to feedback. However, following the inspection the provider has devised a survey for relatives.

Despite this, relatives told us they were well communicated with and said they could speak to the manager and staff and were kept up to date.

The provider did not always make sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People’s care plans lacked sufficient information about their needs and any reasonable adjustments to ensure they had equal access to the service including, how their mobility, communication and sensory needs should be met. The provider had not ensured an accurate and complete record of people’s care was available.

The provider failed to demonstrate written evidence of protocols or information around action staff should take in an emergency, or out of hours. This meant staff did not have access to sufficient information or guidance in an emergency.

However, people were able to access the building, for example, there were wide corridors, signage and there was sufficient lighting. There was a stair lift, and bathrooms had handrails to support people.

We saw people received care and support from staff when required. People had access to medical care including urgently, when needed.

The provider did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People’s care plans did not always evidence how the service had considered people’s protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to support equity in their experience and outcomes. For example, whether people had a physical disability and required mobility aids to improve their experience.

The provider failed to demonstrate they had relevant policies in relation to equality and diversity, or to provide written evidence of how potential discrimination and equality were monitored and action taken to address any issues identified.

After the inspection, the provider submitted evidence of a policy relating to equality, diversity and human rights dated July 2025. However, this was not in place as required at the time of inspection. We could not be assured without the inspection this would have been created.

However, some people living with dementia had their drawers labelled with their contents if required, which enabled them to identify the items in them.

Relatives told us staff treated people living with dementia well. For example, 1 relative told us the provider had educated them about their relative’s dementia diagnosis, and this had increased their knowledge and understanding.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The provider was not able to provide upon request, written evidence of an end-of-life policy or guidance and support in place for staff when supporting people with end-of-life care.

People’s care plans lacked sufficient evidence people’s futures had been considered and if relatives had been involved with decisions. This meant there was a risk people’s wishes may not be followed in an emergency.

However, most care staff had completed end of life training, the provider told us staff were well supported by the district nursing team, and staff told us they felt supported.

The provider told us they had a 'Saying goodbye sheet' to support staff with people who had passed away, and they also produced a memory book for families when people had passed.

One relative told us they had been consulted about their loved one's end of life wishes.