You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 18 February 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

White Lodge Rest Home is a care home for up to 28 older people who may be living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 21 people living at the service.

The building is converted from several residential properties. There are bedrooms across the ground and first floors and several shared living areas for people to use.

We found the following examples of good practice.

The service had implemented robust procedures to reduce the risk of COVID-19, including supporting residents to wear masks, where possible, during personal care. The provider had built a garden building for use as a staff break room and visitors area, which was near completion.

The home had a robust system for admissions, and had contingency plans in place for a potential outbreak. As some people would not be able to isolate, the home had coloured wrist bands to support identification of people’s isolation status easily.

Staff were supported to shield, if needed. Staff were able to launder their uniforms at work to reduce the risks of spreading COVID-19. The provider had built additional storage to support safe and effective management of personal protective equipment (PPE) and cleaning supplies.

Inspection carried out on 20 November 2018

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 20 November 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection continued on 23 November 2018 and was announced.

White Lodge Care Home is a privately-owned care home and can provide accommodation for up to 28 people who are generally older and may have dementia, learning disabilities or mental health problems. At the time of our inspection there were 28 people living in the home.

White Lodge Care Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. People were supported in two detached houses which were joined by a corridor at the rear of the properties. Bedrooms were spread over two floors in both houses. There were two large communal lounges and a dining area on the ground floors. Access to the first floor was via stair lifts and two staircases. There were accessible outside areas to the rear of the home and an enclosed garden.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the actions needed if abuse was suspected. There were enough staff to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. When people were at risk of falling or skin damage staff understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm. The service was responsive when things went wrong and reviewed practices in a timely manner. Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained staff.

People had been involved in assessments of their care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. Their care was provided by staff who had received an induction and on-going training that enabled them to carry out their role effectively. People had their eating and drinking needs understood and met. Opportunities to work in partnership with other organisations took place to ensure positive outcomes for people using the service. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and their families described the staff as caring, kind and friendly and the atmosphere of the home as homely. People were able to express their views about their care and felt in control of their day to day lives. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected.

People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about how they were able to communicate their needs, their life histories and the people important to them. A complaints process was in place and people felt they would be listened to and actions taken if they raised concerns. People’s end of life wishes were known including their individual spiritual and cultural wishes. The home was in the process of reviewing accessible information for people with learning disabilities.

The service had an open and positive culture that encouraged involvement of people, their families, staff and other professional organisations. Leadership was visible and promoted teamwork. Staff spoke positively about the management and had a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Audits and quality assurance processes were effective in driving service improvements. The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services.

Further information is

Inspection carried out on 9 June 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 9 and 14 June and was unannounced.

The home provides accommodation and care for up to 28 people who may be living with dementia and other mental health issues.

There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People said they felt safe living at White Lodge Rest Home and said they were happy there. Staff had completed training with regard to safeguarding adults. There were procedures to follow in the event of a fire or other emergency. Risk assessments were undertaken to identify and minimise risks to people’s health and wellbeing, including mobility and risk of falls. People received their medicines as prescribed and in the way they preferred.

People were happy living at the home. The provider had a training programme in place which ensured staff received training in subjects such as moving and handling, infection control, safeguarding, dementia and nutrition and hydration. People’s rights to give consent and make choices were protected and promoted. People were supported to eat and drink enough and had a choice of food. When necessary, people’s health was monitored by professionals, such as GPs.

People felt staff cared about them and we observed staff behaving in a caring way towards them. We observed staff interacting with people in a positive and inclusive way, seeking their thoughts and views about every day matters. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity in the way they supported them.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Each person had a care plan which detailed their individual preferences and needs and was developed through an assessment process. People enjoyed a range of activities within the home and some went out to the shops. People felt able to complain if they needed to.

People felt the service was well led and knew the registered manager and the provider, who was in the home most days. The culture of the home was positive and person centred and we observed good examples of this throughout the inspection. The registered manager was pro-active in ensuring they were aware of the quality of the service being provided.

Inspection carried out on 30 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people using the service, a relative, three members of staff and the manager. People told us they were very happy with the care and support provided at the service. One relative told us the �home is excellent, we were very lucky to have found this for (our relative)�.

People�s choices and consent to care and support were respected at all times during our inspection. We saw staff supporting people with day-to-day activities, and observed positive interaction between staff and people living in the home.

We reviewed care plans for five people and saw they were person-centred and contained essential details about people�s care and support needs. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. The premises were designed, laid out and maintained to a satisfactory standard. They were appropriate for people living there.

The service followed appropriate checking, selection and induction processes to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people and able to provide them with effective care.

Few complaints had been received, and these were resolved quickly and to the satisfaction of those making them.