You are here

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

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 29 October 2016

This was an announced inspection that took place on 26 September 2016.

Whitstone House is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for adults with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. The home can accommodate up to ten people. The home has a communal lounge, conservatory and dining room. People each have their own bedroom and bathroom. At the time of our visit eight people were living at the home.

The provider has another home, Walnut House, which is also situated on the same site as Whitstone House and is managed by the same manager. The two homes have some staff who work across both homes and some of the provider’s records also relate to both locations. The two homes share communal gardens, swimming pool and garden rooms.

The homes registered manager had recently left, and the newly appointed manager was in the process of registering to become the 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.

Staff told us they worked as part of a team, and that the manager and deputy manager were supportive, encouraging and led by example. There was a strong caring culture in the care and support team.

Staff received the training they needed to deliver a high standard of care. Specialist professionals employed by the provider, such as a speech and language therapist, worked closely with and supported staff to deliver high quality care. People received individualised care in relation to their needs.

There were effective systems in place to manage risks, safeguarding and medicines, and this helped to keep people safe. Where people displayed behaviour that some people may view as challenging there was training and guidance given to staff. This helped them to manage situations in a consistent and positive way, and protected people's dignity and rights. The manager and staff ensured that people’s consent was obtained where they had the capacity to do so before providing support. There was a process in place to ensure that where people did not have the capacity to make decisions themselves, then this was done in their best interests on their behalf. People were able to contribute to the planning of their care.

People received care and support that was responsive to their needs. Care plans provided detailed information about people so staff knew exactly how they wished to be supported. People were at the forefront of the service provision and encouraged to develop and maintain their independence. People participated in a wide and varied range of activities. Regular outings were organised and people were encouraged to pursue their interests and hobbies.

The staff recruited had the right values and skills to work with people who lived at the home. Staffing levels remained at the levels required to make sure every person's needs were met and helped to keep people safe. The manager planned staffing resources flexibly and responsively so that people were able to enjoy a varied but well-structured day.

Systems were in place which continuously assessed and monitored the quality of the service provided at the home, including obtaining feedback from people and their relatives. Systems for recording and managing complaints, safeguarding concerns, incidents and accidents were managed well. The management took steps to learn from such events and put measures in place. This meant that lessons were learnt and similar incidents were less likely to happen again.

Inspection areas



Updated 29 October 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from harm. Staff knew what action to take if they suspected abuse.

Risks to people had been identified and assessed and there was guidance for staff on how to keep people safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs safely. The home followed safe recruitment practices when employing new staff.



Updated 29 October 2016

The service was effective.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation and staff understood the requirements of this.

Meals were designed to ensure people received nutritious food, which promoted good health and reflected their specific needs and preferences.

People were supported to have access to appropriate healthcare services, staff were creative in finding solutions to help people who found this to cause them anxiety.



Updated 29 October 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were respectful of people's privacy and dignity.

People were supported to express their views and were actively involved, as much as they were able, in making decisions about all aspects of their care.



Updated 29 October 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans provided detailed and comprehensive information to staff about people's care needs, their likes, dislikes and preferences.

There was a range of activities that people engaged in. People were encouraged to pursue their own hobbies and interests.

People's concerns and complaints were investigated and responded to promptly.



Updated 29 October 2016

The service was well led.

People and their relatives were positive about the way the home was managed.

There was a range of robust audit systems in place to measure the quality and care delivered.