Whitemoor House

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

Some people who used the service had multiple health needs. Information about people’s health needs was clearly documented in their care plans. For example, a person’s epilepsy care plan provided staff with detailed information to identify pre-seizure signs, types of seizures and actions for staff to take. Staff were able to recognise pre-seizure signs and take appropriate action to maintain the person’s safety. Staff kept clear records of visits or contact with healthcare professionals, which documented the reasons for the visit, actions and the outcome. This helped to ensure medical advice was followed.

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.

Comprehensive assessments captured people’s physical, emotional, and cognitive needs. These were reviewed regularly to reflect any changes in a person’s condition or preferences. Staff followed recognised best‑practice guidance, including approaches tailored for people living with epilepsy, diabetes, and other health conditions. This ensured care plans were informed by up‑to‑date clinical knowledge, promoted wellbeing, and supported people to maintain independence.

Positive behaviour support plans were in place and staff understood how to support people when they became anxious or distressed.

A relative told us, “We get together whenever something might need to change and we have a full review once a year and a report of the meeting is produced.”

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 service worked in partnership with other providers, which meant people received consistent support. For example, a person who recently moved into the service expressed a wish to attend a different day service. The provider engaged with the day service, shared information and arranged regular reviews. This meant the person was supported in a consistent way that reduced their anxiety.

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.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were person-centred and detailed the support people needed to safely manage their health and wellbeing. For example, in relation to diabetes, eating and drinking, nutrition and weight loss and mental wellbeing. Guidance included how to support the person to take ownership of their own health and wellbeing, how to recognise any decline and the action to be taken. This meant people had increased their ability to make informed choices and have the support to do this safely.

People had robust ‘hospital passports and emergency bags. These contained essential information to support people safely in an emergency.

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

People’s skills, life experiences, and personal strengths were actively discussed with them and their support teams to help shape meaningful, achievable outcomes. This approach allowed people to take ownership of their goals and understand the steps needed to reach them. Support plans focused on what people could do, rather than perceived barriers, which helped maintain both physical and mental wellbeing. This led to increased self-confidence, greater independence, and an improved quality of life.

The provider had not always worked in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and associated code of practice. People’s capacity to make specific day to day decisions was not always assessed, or the best interest decision making processes followed examples include constant supervision, freedom to leave and items being stored securely. However, People’s capacity to make specific complex decisions were completed in line with the MCA code of practice. The registered manager was responsive to our concerns and was in the process of ensuring these were all completed where required.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the MCA, and we saw they always asked for consent before providing support. People and their families told us staff sought consent before providing care or support. Consent forms were accessible in picture and written format, to support people to make informed choices about their care.