• Care Home
  • Care home

Wilhelmina House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

21 Park Hill Rise, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 5JF (020) 8760 0933

Provided and run by:
The Whitgift Foundation

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 7 April 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 11 March 2021 and was announced.

Overall inspection


Updated 7 April 2021

Wilhelmina is a care home that can accommodate and provide personal care and support for up to 26 older people. There were 19 people living in the home at the time of our inspection.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

When we last inspected the service on 30 June and 1 July 2015 they were meeting the regulations we looked at and we rated the service Good overall and in all five key questions.

At this inspection we found the service continued to be Good.

The provider had systems in place to safeguard people from abuse including systems to respond to allegations of abuse. The provider shared learning from incidents and investigations across the organisation to improve practice.

Risks relating to people’s care were reduced as the provider assessed and managed risks. Risks relating to the premises and infection control were also controlled and the premises were clean and well maintained. Systems to ensure water temperatures remained safe to reduce the risk of scalding for some people could be improved. The premises met the support needs of older people and people had sufficient space to entertain visitors.

There were enough staff deployed to support people and the provider checked staff were suitable to work with people by carrying out recruitment checks.

The provider managed people’s medicines safely although systems to monitor the temperature some medicines were stored at required improvement. Medicines were administered, recorded and disposed of in line with best practice. Staff received training in medicines management and the provider checked staff were competent to administer medicines to people.

People were supported by staff who were well supported to carry out their role with a programme of induction, training, supervision and appraisal. A trainer closely monitored staff training requirements and provided training and workshops to staff in small groups.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities to provide care in line with MCA, although there was no reason to suspect people lacked capacity. Staff received training in MCA to understand expectations of them in relation to this Act.

The provider assessed people’s needs through consulting people, their relatives and any professional reports. People were supported to maintain their health as staff monitored their day to day health needs and helped them access healthcare services.

People received choice of food and drink and were positive about the food they received. Systems to ensure chefs had access to information about people’s dietary needs and preferences could be strengthened.

People liked the staff who cared for them. Staff understood the people they supported and had developed good relationships with them. Staff supported people to communicate as they understood people’s communication needs. People were involved in decisions relating to their care and staff supported people to maintain their independence. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Relatives could visit people at any time and staff made them feel welcome.

People were supported to access activities they were interested in as the service provided a popular activity programme.

People’s care plans contained sufficient detail to be reliable guide staff in understanding people’s needs and how best to support them. Care was provided responsively to people and staff responded promptly to call bells.

The provider had a suitable complaints process in place which people were made aware of, although the provider had not received any complaints in the past year.

The registered manager was experienced and competent and there was a clear management structure. Leadership was visible across the service. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities well.

The provider developed strong links with the local community. The provider ran a daycentre from the service which helped local people reduce their risk of social isolation. The provider facilitated visits by a local church congregation to the service and also visits by people to the church. Other community groups visited the service, such as Brownies.

The provider had systems to monitor, assess and improve the service which included frequent visits by the chief executive officer to audit the service. The provider had systems to encourage open feedback from people and staff with regular residents meetings and staff meetings. Two people had been appointed ‘residents’ representatives’ to gather people’s views informally and present them to management.

The provider worked in partnership with key organisations such as the local authority and multidisciplinary teams. The registered manager attended forums run by the local authority to keep abreast of developments in care and the local authority’s expectations of them.

The provider was meeting their registration requirement to submit notifications to CQC of significant incidents such as allegations of abuse.