We carried out a review of the data available to us about Whiteheather on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Whiteheather, you can give feedback on this service.
Whiteheather is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to five people with a learning disability or who are autistic. At the time of this inspection there were five people using the service.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Right Support
• Staff supported people to take part in activities and pursue their interests. Activities and relationships had been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, staff were committed to supporting people to regain their confidence and interests. We made a recommendation around developing staff skills to enable them to support people to engage in activities in line with their individual needs.
• The registered manager promoted an ethos where staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence. We made a recommendation about developing staff skills in this area.
• The service worked with people to plan for when they experienced periods of distress so that any restrictions on people’s freedom were minimised.
• Staff supported people to make decisions following best practice in decision-making. The registered manager was improving the way decision-making was recorded.
• Staff supported people with their medicines in a way that promoted their independence and achieved the best possible health outcomes. The registered manager and staff worked well to ensure people who became distressed were not controlled by excessive and inappropriate use of medicines.
• The service gave people care and support in a safe, clean, well equipped, well-furnished and well-maintained environment that met their sensory and physical needs. The service had effective infection, prevention and control measures to keep people safe
• People were able to personalise their bedrooms. The registered manager and provider were reviewing options to provide increased choices of shared living areas.
Right Care
• Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.
• The service had enough appropriately skilled staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.
• Staff understood people’s individual communication needs. The provider supported staff to develop their communication skills, when required.
• People’s care and support plans reflected their range of needs and this promoted their wellbeing and enjoyment of life. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed as required when people’s needs changed.
Right culture
• Staff placed people at the heart of everything they did and provided personalised care.
• People and those important to them, were involved in planning their care. Advocates were used well, to help ensure people’s views were listened to.
• The provider ensured risks of a closed culture were minimised. Staff and managers worked well with external professionals and families to ensure people’s needs were met.
• There was a shared enthusiasm across the service for learning from mistakes and continually improving safety and people’s quality of life.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 12 July 2017).
We also visited the service in 2021 to carry out a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. We were assured that people were being protected by the prevention and control of infection. This inspection was unrated.
Why we inspected
We received concerns that there were not enough staff to provide safe, person-centred care to people living at Whiteheather. We were also told the service was not minimising the risk of people getting COVID-19. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe, responsive and well-led only.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The manager was following the government's guidance on whole home testing for people and staff. This included using rapid testing, and weekly testing for staff and monthly testing for people who used the service.
¿ Staff had received training on working during the pandemic in relation to COVID 19 and had received training in the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE).
¿ Some communal areas in the service had been changed to encourage people to socially distance but this was difficult due to the layout and the service being small.
¿ Appropriate use of guidance and signage in the service helped prompt staff and people to minimise the risk of spreading infection.
¿ Infection prevention control practices had been implemented such as a good supply of PPE and hand sanitisers. Comprehensive audits of cleaning were completed by staff and overseen by the manager.
¿ People’s well-being was looked after by staff who knew them well. Staff continued to engage in individual activities of people's own choice.
Whiteheather provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to five people who predominantly have physical disabilities and may have mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were five people who lived in the service.
The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, DoLS and associated Codes of Practice. The Act, Safeguards and Codes of Practice are in place to protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there is a need for restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed and decided by appropriately trained professionals.
The service had appropriate systems in place to keep people safe, and staff followed these guidelines when they supported people, however there were insufficient numbers of care staff available to meet people’s care needs at all times. People received their medication as prescribed and on time. The provider also had a robust recruitment process in place to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm.
People’s health needs were managed by staff with input from relevant health care professionals. Staff supported people to have sufficient food and drink that met their individual needs. People’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.
People where they were able and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Care plans accurately reflected people’s care and support requirements and people’s healthcare needs were well managed. Staff interacted with people in a caring, respectful and professional manner, and responded well to people’s care and support needs.
People were encouraged to take part in interests and hobbies that they enjoyed. They were supported to keep in contact with family and develop new friendships so that they could enjoy social activities outside the service. The registered manager and staff provided people with opportunities to express their views and there were systems in place to manage concerns and complaints.
There was an open culture and the management team demonstrated good leadership skills. Staff were clear about their roles and they were able to express their views. The management team had systems in place to check and audit the quality of the service. The views of people and their relatives were sought and feedback was used to make improvements and develop the service
The inspection took place on 15 July 2015 and was unannounced. Whiteheather provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to five people who live with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The service does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were five people who lived in the service.
The service had recently recruited a new manager and an application for registration was in process. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were safe because staff understood their responsibilities in managing risk and identifying abuse. People received safe care that met their assessed needs. There were enough staff who had been recruited safely and who had the skills and knowledge to provide care and support in ways that people preferred. The provider had systems in place to manage medicines and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely.
The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, DoLS and associated Codes of Practice. The Act, Safeguards and Codes of Practice are in place to protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there is a need for restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed and decided by appropriately trained professionals.
People’s health needs were managed appropriately with input from relevant health care professionals. Staff supported people to have sufficient food and drink that met their individual needs. People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who knew them well.
People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family so that they were not socially isolated. There was an open culture and staff were supported to provide care that was centred on the individual.
The provider had systems in place to check the quality of the service and take the views and concerns of people and their relatives into account to make improvements to the service.
We found that people were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. People’s diversity and values were respected.
We looked at five sets of care records and found that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare.
Medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately and kept safely. Records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed. We saw that there were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection.
We also found that there were enough skilled, experienced and qualified staff to meet people’s needs. A staff member told us: “It’s a pleasure to come to work, the atmosphere is great.” Another member of staff said: “There is an open door policy and working here is a joy.”
We observed that the staff were attentive to people's needs. Staff interacted with people in a friendly, respectful and professional manner. We saw that staff sought people's agreement before providing any support or assistance. The people we saw were relaxed and engaged with their surroundings.
We saw that appropriate measures were taken to ensure that the people living in the home, their visitors and the staff were protected against the spread of health care associated infections. People were encouraged and supported to make complaints. Staff on duty told us that they tried to ensure that complaints were dealt with informally and we saw that complaints that had been received were dealt with in line with the provider's complaints procedure.
We saw that people in the home were relaxed and comfortable with staff and other people using the service.
Relatives who completed surveys as part of the home's own quality assurance process were complimentary about the service provided. They made positive comments about the environment, the care provided, the staff and how the home was managed.