The White House Nursing Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has remained outstanding. This meant service leadership was exceptional and distinctive. Leaders and the culture they created drove and improved high-quality, person-centred 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 had a clear shared vision, strategy and culture, which was reflected through its policies and procedures. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and an exceptional understanding of the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There was a strong culture of people feeling valued and supported. People spoke warmly about how staff promoted independence and encouraged meaningful activity. One person told us, “I like to do as much for myself as I can and we are encouraged to do this,” explaining how staff supported them in ways that respected their autonomy. Another person told us, “I love it here! Oh yes, there is always someone around,” demonstrating a sense of safety and belonging.

People’s day‑to‑day interactions with staff reflected the home’s shared values. Our observations showed warm and natural conversations, respectful language and positive engagement, including staff offering gentle encouragement, humour and personalised support during activities and mealtimes. The environment itself reflected the culture, with personalised bedrooms, dementia‑friendly layouts and displays celebrating positive feedback received from families.

Managers spoke warmly about the history of the home and their respect for previous leaders who had set high standards of respectful and inclusive care. They described how they shared these values with the staff team, and how everyone worked together and shared pride in the home. The culture within the staff team was equally strong. Staff consistently described feeling supported and respected, with one care worker saying, “I am treated well and fairly,” and highlighting a culture where issues could be raised openly. The providers values were demonstrated throughout practice and policies, and their commitment to innovation evidenced their focus on learning and improvement.

This alignment of values across leadership, staff, people and relatives demonstrated a deeply embedded, positive culture where everyone understood the provider’s expectations and contributed to achieving them.

The provider had exceptionally inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They always did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders demonstrated high levels of capability, compassion and inclusivity. People, relatives, staff and external professionals universally praised the registered manager. Feedback consistently described visible, approachable and skilled leadership that set clear expectations for high‑quality, person‑centred care. Leaders had clear lines of responsibility and accountability.

People spoke with enthusiasm about the registered manager’s impact. One person said, “The manager, she is brilliant. She is the best. I like her a lot.” Relatives expressed similar confidence, with one commenting, “The manager is wonderful, I cannot praise her highly enough. She is approachable and easy to talk with.” Professionals echoed this, with a specialist healthcare professional describing the home as “second to none… the manager knows the patients personally.”

Leaders were visible throughout the home, showing they were present during daily care, supported activities and engaged directly with people and staff. Staff repeatedly highlighted how leadership supported their development.

Leaders modelled flexible, person‑centred working practices and prioritised staff wellbeing through initiatives such as monthly staff café sessions, which promoted open dialogue, cultural awareness and a sense of collective belonging. Staff spoke with pride about working within the service, describing leaders who were visible, approachable and genuinely invested in their development. One member of staff shared, “We are well looked after and managers are supportive… I love working here.” Another commented, “Why would I look for another job when I can work here?” This reflected a workforce that felt inspired and sustained by capable and inclusive leadership.

Leaders demonstrated strong professional competence and oversight. The registered manager described a robust programme of audits, daily dashboards and routine oversight of care records, medicines and incidents. External professionals confirmed this with a one reporting the home to be “professional, responsive, and committed to delivering person‑centred care,” highlighting strong communication and clinical risk management.

The combination of skilled oversight, compassionate relationships and inclusive team culture demonstrated outstanding leadership that directly contributed to positive outcomes for people.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had an open and supportive culture where staff felt able to raise concerns and contribute to improvements. Staff consistently described managers as accessible and responsive showing confidence that issues would be addressed. Staff explained they had twice‑daily handovers where concerns or learning could be discussed, and the registered manager operated an open‑door policy for immediate support. A staff member explained the manager responded compassionately when they raised a personal issue saying, “I felt safe to explain my issue, and I was given time off to rest.” This demonstrated psychological safety and a supportive leadership style.

There were appropriate policies in place to support safe reporting, including a whistleblowing policy with alternative external routes for staff who felt unable to raise concerns internally. Staff feedback showed they felt treated fairly and supported, with one staff member stating, “Everyone is treated fairly,” which contributed to a culture were speaking up felt safe.

People and relatives also felt comfortable raising concerns.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider promoted an inclusive working environment where staff felt respected and supported.

Leaders demonstrated awareness of workforce needs and offered flexible working arrangements, including part‑time hours, nights‑only shifts and accommodation of personal circumstances. Staff told us they felt this flexibility supported their wellbeing and ability to continue working. The service also held monthly staff café sessions to encourage cultural awareness and wellbeing conversations.

Staff explained that they shared and enjoyed food cooked to reflect their different cultural backgrounds and enjoyed social time together, strengthening mutual respect. One care worker said, “I absolutely love working here, the managers are so supportive.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider had effective governance systems, although some elements were in transition from paper-based records to electronic records to improve daily oversight of compliance and risk. Both systems were running concurrently, ensuring continuity of clinical governance was maintained. We viewed both paper and electronic systems and found there were no gaps in oversight.

Responsibility for audits were allocated for accountability across different staff teams, and this was overseen by the managers.

Governance arrangements were well embedded. The registered manager completed daily, weekly and monthly audits supported by a clear audit schedule. These included medicines, care plans, IPC, falls, mealtime experience, call bells and safeguarding. All monthly audits reviewed were dated and complete. The provider demonstrated learning from incidents, with actions noted and followed up in subsequent audits. This showed responsive oversight and effective use of audit processes to maintain standards.

Weekly medicine audits undertaken by the lead nurse and monthly audits by the registered manager ensured oversight. The electronic medicine administration system provided real‑time dashboards that alerted staff to medicines that have been refused or overdue medicines.

This consistency and quality in their governance systems was echoed in a current external quality assurance report from the Local Authority which was shared by the provider.

The provider worked exceptionally well with a wide range of partners to ensure people experienced joined‑up, holistic care.

Evidence showed extensive engagement with external professionals, including GP's, diabetes specialists, tissue viability nurses, dieticians, community mental health teams, urgent care teams, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and behaviour support teams. Leaders described collaborative working as routine, and professionals confirmed this. A healthcare professional reported the home “works collaboratively with primary care, district nursing teams, and other allied health professionals” and was “receptive to feedback.”

Professionals consistently described the home as one of the best services they worked with. A healthcare professional stated, “The White House is second to none… the [manager] knows the patients personally…I would recommend The White House to anyone.” Another similarly reported, “There is a culture of openness, and clinical discussions are handled professionally. In my experience, the home values partnership working and demonstrates willingness to reflect and improve where needed”.

The provider also demonstrated deep engagement with the local community. Activities included intergenerational programmes, volunteer organisations supporting crafts and companionship, shared events with neighbouring care services, such as hosting coffee mornings. The provider demonstrated engaging with other community groups such as schools, local organisations and various faith leaders and groups. One volunteer explained, “I help with crafts…They [care home] are dedicated to the people who live here,” highlighting long-term meaningful community ties.

People benefited significantly from this partnership approach. Staff accompanied people to hospital appointments when required, arranged external activities such as trips to the seaside, garden centre visits and other local outings, and facilitated community donations such as decorations from local businesses for various cultural celebrations. The home’s outstanding partnership work clearly enhanced people’s quality of life upheld their independence and ensured their needs were met by the right professionals at the right time.

The provider had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Learning from audits, incidents and feedback was routinely identified, acted upon and shared with staff through handovers and meetings.

There was extensive involvement in research, pilots and digital innovation with a range of external health partners. The home participated in projects including, “virtual ward “(remote monitoring), digital ear health monitoring to support early referral and specialist interventions, digital fluid monitoring, RITA dementia activities, and national dementia research programmes. Staff used these tools to improve outcomes, such as maintaining sensory abilities, reducing falls, improving pain management and supporting people with complex needs.

This innovation and improvement work directly benefited people. The service also demonstrated proactive work to enhance sustainability, including installing 60 solar panels and developing plans for resident‑grown produce in the garden as part of a university‑supported environmental project.

Staff were encouraged to develop professionally, with access to e‑learning, clinical webinars, face‑to‑face training and reflective practice. Leaders promoted innovation by supporting staff to attend specialist training and enabling them to implement new models of care, such as holistic dementia sessions which focus on sensory experiences and foster belonging. This consistent commitment to learning, improvement and evidence‑based innovation demonstrated outstanding practice that enhanced experiences and meaningful outcomes for people.