The White House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The registered manager monitored and analysed accident, incident and safeguarding records to identify any trends or lessons learned and communicated those with all staff.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and relatives felt the service was safe and people were protected from abuse. A relative told us, “I would absolutely recommend (the home). It is our [Person’s] safe place. Our experience has been lovely. The staff are wonderful.”

Staff had received up to date safeguarding training and knew how to report any incidents or concerns. A staff member said, “Safeguarding notices are in prominent places within the home, not just for staff but also visitors. Management are extremely approachable and should I ever have any concerns, I would not hesitate to report them.”

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been applied for in a timely way, and any conditions were appropriately added to people’s individual care plans. The registered manager recorded and reviewed them regularly.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff assessed and managed risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing effectively. People’s care records contained detailed risk assessments which supported staff to meet people’s needs whilst minimising the risks. For example, supporting a person with regular positional changes to reduce the risk of skin integrity breakdown.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The registered manager determined staffing levels in line with people’s individual support needs. Throughout our site visit, staff were visible around the home and call bells were answered quickly. People and most relatives felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. A person said, “Yes, staff come quite quickly (when I use the call bell).” Relatives were generally positive about the staffing levels within the home. One relative told us, “There appears to be (enough staff). I’ve never (visited) and felt no one was around.” Other relatives discussed specific days when the home appeared short-staffed, which we fed back to the registered manager.

Staff received a comprehensive induction and regular training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively and safely. Staff felt supported in their roles and told us they received regular supervisions and appraisals. A staff member said, “I feel staffing levels are safe. I have completed my induction and found it to be very comprehensive. I feel the training is good and opportunities are given to approach management/quality compliance to talk over any issues or extra training that may be required.”

Staff were recruited in a safe way. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection policy and procedure which included all appropriate checks.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. Medicines were administered, stored and managed safely. Staff ensured the medicines room and fridge were both maintained within the appropriate temperature range and medicines had the date of opening recorded on them.

Staff responsibility for administering medicines were appropriately trained and regularly had their competence reviewed. Relatives told us their family members received their medicines on time and that staff discussed any changes or updates in relation to their family member’s medicines with them.

Regular medicine checks and audits were carried out to identify any errors and take appropriate action.