The White House Nursing Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has remained outstanding. This meant services were tailored to meet the needs of individuals and delivered to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care.

This service scored 93 (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 was exceptional at making sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider delivered person‑centred care that reflected people’s individual needs, preferences and histories. Care records and risk assessments were detailed and person centred, and we found that individual risk assessments met individual needs rather than following a generic template.

Care plans reviewed during the site visit contained highly individualised information that clearly reflected each person’s unique lifestyle, preferences and priorities. Plans detailed personal interests, equipment needs and daily routines

One person’s record included risk assessments for their pet and multiple digital devices, showing how staff thoughtfully balanced safety with supporting the person to continue living in the way they valued. Another person’s plan outlined personalised support to enjoy alcohol with meals and maintain written contact with a friend via email, ensuring everyday routines and relationships that mattered to them were preserved and actively enabled. Another care plan demonstrated how someone with advanced dementia was supported to live in a safe environment by enjoying familiar objects and identifying what activity was most important.

People and relatives consistently described care as not only tailored, but genuinely life‑enhancing. One relative explained that their family member was now “dressed and does things she would never have dreamed of before, such as going to the circus.” They attributed this transformation to staff being patient, taking time to understand her wishes and thinking creatively about activities that were meaningful and confidence‑building. This demonstrated the significant positive impact of personalised approaches on people’s engagement, enjoyment and sense of possibility.

Another relative described how staff arranged regular outings to the pub, or for curry and to a garden centre, reflecting a strong commitment to supporting people’s preferred routines and personal interests. These experiences enriched people’s social lives, maintained important community connections and promoted emotional wellbeing. Together, this evidence showed that person‑centred care was deeply embedded and resulted in consistently positive, empowering and highly individualised outcomes for people.

Staff and volunteers recognised that care was planned around each person. One said the home was “as good as when my relative was here” and that staff remained “dedicated to the people who live here,” noting that many staff had worked at the home for a long time and knew people well. Our observations supported this, and we saw staff using people’s preferred names, engaging them in conversation about topics they enjoyed and adapting support in response to individual cues.

The provider had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People, relatives and professionals described care as organised, reliable and of an extremely high standard, and we saw that staff worked in a coordinated way to ensure needs were anticipated and met throughout the day. People had named keyworkers, with oversight provided by senior care staff.

Relatives spoke very positively about the standard of care. One relative said “Communication with families is good. we are kept informed about any changes in health or wellbeing, and staff are always willing to discuss care when needed. The manager is approachable and responsive, which gives reassurance. One person described it as, “My [relative] seems happy…she always smiles when the carers come in.” Another relative stated, “We are very happy with the home. They are sensitive and attentive to my [relative’s] needs.”

A professional, who regularly visited people, reported that the manager ran the home “to an extremely high standard” and that this was reflected in the staff. They told us, “In my professional opinion the home is outstanding due to the care and commitment given by all staff.” Other health care professionals echoed these views. One described The White House as “one of the best run care homes I visit” highlighting that staff were well trained, well informed, and kept good records.

Our observations supported this. We saw calm and well‑coordinated care at mealtimes, with staff providing one‑to‑one support where needed, using appropriate touch and conversation to reassure people, and responding immediately if anyone showed signs of distress. Activities such as flower arranging, and music sessions were well supported by staff, who ensured those who wished to join in were included.

The provider had highly effective policies and processes that ensured people received well‑coordinated, integrated care involving relatives, external health professionals and wider support networks. Staff were trained in dementia care, enabling them to recognise changing needs and work confidently and compassionately with specialists to deliver consistent, high‑quality support. Rotas were reviewed daily, ensuring staffing levels remained responsive and flexible enough to facilitate external appointments, community activities and individual routines. This proactive approach meant people experienced seamless care, reduced delays and improved continuity when accessing health and social support.

The provider also used a range of communication systems to keep relatives and professionals informed, including remote and digital access to records. This enhanced transparency, strengthened collaborative working and ensured decisions about people’s care were based on real‑time information. The impact of this integrated approach was clear: people benefitted from smoother care pathways, improved access to healthcare and greater involvement from those who mattered most to them. This resulted in more coordinated, personalised and effective care experiences.

The provider was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Families consistently described communication as strong, with multiple channels used to keep them updated. One relative said, “We also can see what is happening online,” demonstrating how they checked their family member’s daily care schedule on their phone. The real time access to their family member’s care records meant that they were kept informed about the condition of their family member and they had the reassurance that their family member was being cared for appropriately. They described the care plan and reviews as “all done well” with staff letting them know about any changes.

Another relative, whose family member had recently moved in said, “I am happy with the communication from the home, it is timely and clear, for example I had an email and 2 calls with them yesterday.” They explained this means they feel confident in the care being provided on a day-to-day basis. A further relative told us they had received a copy of the care plan and continued to “feel included in the decision making,” describing staff as “welcoming, accommodating and pro‑active” and stating, “The home has a really nice feel to it, I am happy, absolutely.”

Information for people, visitors and professionals was shared appropriately, in line with data protection and accessible information standards. We saw an electronic sign‑in system that allowed visitors to rate their experience and leave feedback when signing out, alongside a display board showing cards thanking staff for their care. The reception area displayed key information. In communal areas, accessible information was available about topics such as sepsis, urinary tract infection prevention and end‑of‑life support, helping staff, people and relatives understand health issues and escalation pathways.

The provider demonstrated an exceptional and proactive approach to sharing information and seeking feedback, ensuring people, relatives and professionals were fully informed and meaningfully involved. A comprehensive range of mechanisms was used to capture views, including annual anonymised surveys for people, relatives, staff and professionals, digital feedback tools, website submissions, cards, letters and emails. Regular residents’ and relatives’ meetings further strengthened communication and created accessible opportunities for open dialogue.

Feedback was actively analysed and used as a driver for continual improvement. Comments reviewed during the inspection reflected high levels of satisfaction, with relatives telling us, “My [relative] has only been in the White House for a couple of weeks, but the level of personalised care is amazing,” and “Couldn’t be happier with my [relative’s] care.” Staff and professional surveys demonstrated similarly positive experiences, reinforcing that information was shared in ways that built confidence and trust across all groups.

The provider was exceptional at enabling people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff always involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Relatives consistently said they would feel comfortable raising concerns. One relative stated, “I would feel comfortable making a complaint – they are receptive to things. They are obliging and they listen.” Another said they would usually speak with the registered manager, unless it was a small issue that staff could resolve immediately. The nominated individual and registered manager explained that they addressed issues promptly, which meant formal complaints were rare. Records confirmed that previous safeguarding concerns had been managed openly with those involved.

People and families were involved in wider decisions about the service. Relatives described attending annual meetings with guest speakers, including specialists in dementia, and said it was “always good to meet other family and friends.” One relative highlighted that these events, along with social gatherings, helped families feel part of the community and able to express views. People also attended regular residents’ meetings. One person said they felt comfortable to speak there if needed and described the home as “one of the best” they had experienced.

Involvement extended to care planning and review. Feedback from external partners confirmed the open and collaborative culture. A health and social care professional said the home “always have the required information readily available and clearly know their residents well” and highlighted that staff “show respect and dignity to all,” reflecting the impact of listening and involvement on people’s daily experiences.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider’s policies supported access to the service and its facilities. Visiting was unrestricted, and family and friends spoke positively about feeling welcome.

People had access to a wide range of activities and communal spaces. We saw people in lounges, the conservatory and garden, with staff facilitating engagement. A volunteer described that “there are things to do all day, every day” and that activities were often linked to special dates, such as making flower displays to celebrate Chinese New Year. The volunteer also noted that some people preferred not to watch television and were instead kept occupied with other meaningful activities.

The environment supported accessibility. Corridors were clear of obstruction, floors were dementia‑friendly, and bedroom doors were personalised to help orientation. We observed People who choose to remain in their rooms or use communal areas, and staff supported different preferences, such as people who preferred the quieter upstairs lounge, or preferred to stay in their rooms.

Staff recognised that not everyone enjoyed group activities. The registered manager described volunteers who spent one‑to‑one time with people who did not like groups, and we saw staff offering participation but respecting people’s decisions to decline. People who preferred to stay in their rooms were supported to use personal devices to access activities they enjoyed, such as listening to the radio or watching tv.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Health professionals similarly reported consistently positive experiences for people. A healthcare professional said they had “always found the staff to be very well trained, very well informed, polite, friendly, willing to help,” and observed that people appeared safe and well supported whenever they visited.

People and relatives described improvements in wellbeing after moving into the home, including stabilised weight, greater participation in activities and increased happiness compared to previous placements. One relative contrasted The White House with another home where care “was not great,” explaining that although the previous home was “very new, all singing and dancing,” staff there were not well trained, whereas at The White House “the staff are caring and I feel happier about things.”

Leaders promoted an inclusive culture for staff and people, which underpinned equitable experiences. Staff described the team as “very inclusive,” with no judgement, and explained that diversity was celebrated through shared food, cultural events and flexible working arrangements. The provider had policies on equality, diversity and sexual relationships that supported people’s rights and individuality. Overall, feedback from multiple sources suggested that people, experienced respectful care, improved wellbeing and outcomes that enhanced their quality of life.

People were given exceptional support to plan for important life changes, so they could make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The registered manager and nurses worked closely with the GP to complete weekly “ward rounds,” including monthly reviews focused on end‑of‑life care and advanced care planning. Where appropriate, advanced care plans and Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were clearly documented and flagged in electronic care records.

Care records demonstrated a highly proactive and person‑centred approach to planning for the future, ensuring people’s wishes were clearly understood, recorded and honoured. Discussions about future care, including end‑of‑life preferences, were held sensitively and documented in detail, reducing duplication and providing clear guidance for all staff and professionals involved. The home used shared digital systems to ensure future plans were visible across agencies so the person’s wishes and preferences in relation to end of life care were shared and respected.

One person’s plan included a comprehensive advanced care plan and end‑of‑life arrangements developed in partnership with their family, alongside signposting to specialist charities for additional emotional and practical support. This ensured their care was aligned with personal values while enabling external agencies to contribute effectively.

Another person’s record documented a best‑interest decision regarding bed rails and included thoughtful, anticipatory planning for end‑of‑life needs, ensuring these were fully understood and consistently respected by everyone involved in their care. Relatives confirmed they were actively included in advanced care planning discussions.

Care records consistently showed clear documentation of family involvement in key decisions, including the use of technology, end‑of‑life wishes and specific safety measures. This cohesive and integrated approach meant information was easily accessible, avoided unnecessary duplication, and enabled staff to deliver care that was coordinated, deeply personalised and focused on achieving the best possible outcomes for people as their needs changed.

The registered manager gave an example where culturally important end‑of‑life preferences had been honoured. The team facilitated spiritual support for the person by making sure the relevant spiritual leaders could visit and ensure the person was fully supported to face end of life in line with their wishes. This demonstrated sensitivity to both cultural and spiritual needs when planning for the future.