White Hill House Residential Care 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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before moving into the home, and care records highlighted key information such as risks and communication preferences. One relative said, “I am asked regularly about the care provided [for my relative]. I am happy and can have as much input as I want. There was a good assessment carried out prior to [relative] moving in.”

Support plans were clear, detailed, and person-centred, outlining how staff should support people to meet their needs. Where required, healthcare professionals were involved in assessing needs and providing guidance in line with best practice, which meant people achieved positive outcomes.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People received effective care and support because they were supported by a staff team that received regular training and had a good understanding of their needs.

People’s risk of falls and skin integrity was measured using recognised tools, such as the Waterlow scale, which is a clinical tool used to assess a person’s risk of developing pressure ulcers, with any concerns appropriately assessed and relevant referrals for support sent. Such risk assessments we viewed were clear with details of preventive measures including any supporting equipment used.

People were supported to eat and drink, to maintain their health and wellbeing. Staff knew people’s food preferences well and explained how they encouraged and supported individuals to be involved in choosing, planning, and preparing their meals. We found that people made daily decisions about what they ate and drank and when. Food choices, including vegetarian, were provided at each meal in line with expected standards.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The deputy manager had developed positive working relationships with partner agencies, to achieve the best possible outcomes for people. The service worked with a range of professionals, which included the local GP surgery and district nursing team.

One professional told us, “They [White Hill House] use the services appropriately. We have an excellent working relationship.”

Staff worked well together to share information and plan care. They told us they had easy access to care plans, which helped them provide consistent support. Staff said communication within the team was “very good” and that information about people’s needs was shared promptly.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff monitored people’s health and escalated concerns appropriately. Exercise classes were available for people to attend if they chose to, to promote strength and mobility.

Relatives had confidence in the staff and told us their loved ones were supported to manage their care, support and health needs by staff who knew them well. One relative said, “They [the staff] encourage [relative] to join in and mix with others which is better for their mental health.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Systems to monitor and improve outcomes were effective. The provider had processes in place to ensure people’s care and support were continuously monitored and reviewed to promote good outcomes. People received individualised care that was flexible and responsive to their needs, delivered by staff who knew them well.

One resident had been in bed for a month prior to moving to White Hill House but now spent time in the communal areas with others which had demonstrated an improvement in their quality of life. Both their physical and mental health had improved after comprehensive assessment, regular care plan reviews and exploration of the person’s aspirations and goals.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA. Where people lacked capacity, assessments had been carried out with best interest’s decisions recorded. The staff had received Mental Capacity Act training and were aware of how to gain consent from people.

One relative said, “[The provider] ask me about the ability of [my relative] to make decisions.[The provider] include me in the process.”