We carried out a review of the data available to us about Whitehaven Residential Home 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 Whitehaven Residential Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Systems were in place to support visitors to access the service safely and reduce the risk of them spreading infection.
Risk assessments for staff at higher risk or with underlying health conditions were carried out to minimise the risk and spread of infection and keep people safe. Everyone in the staff team had received the vaccine to protect them from coronavirus.
The registered manager was communicating with people, staff and family members regularly to make sure everyone understood procedures and precautions being taken, and how to keep people safe. The registered manager worked with the care staff team to ensure infection prevention and control measures were followed.
The service had enough personal protective equipment (PPE) to meet current and future demand. Staff were using PPE correctly and disposal was safe.
There were up to date infection prevention and control (IPC) policies and procedures, backed up by regular newsletters and there were posters around the home. There was a COVID-19 folder accessible to all staff. Staff had received training and COVID-19 testing was taking place in accordance with current guidance.
A registered manager was in post. 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.
Risk assessments were in place which informed plans of care for people to ensure their safety and welfare, and staff had a good awareness of these. Incidents and accidents were clearly documented and investigated. Actions and learning were identified from these and shared with all staff.
People were supported by staff who had a good understanding of how to keep them safe, identify signs of abuse and report these appropriately.
Robust processes to check the suitability of staff to work with people were in place. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs of people and they received appropriate training and support to ensure people were cared for in line with their needs and preferences.
Medicines were administered, stored and ordered in a safe and effective way.
People were encouraged and supported to make decisions about their care and welfare. Where people could not consent to their care, staff sought appropriate guidance and followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights and freedom.
People received meals which were well presented and in line with their needs, preferences, likes and dislikes. Staff dined with people and supported them if needed in a calm and supportive way.
Staff were calm, kind and gentle in their interactions with people and people responded well to the support offered to them. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained and staff were caring and considerate as they supported people. Staff involved people and their relatives in the planning of their care.
External health and social care professionals were involved in the care of people and care plans reflected this.
The registered manager promoted an open and honest culture for working which was fair and supportive to all staff. Staff felt supported in their roles and people and their relatives spoke highly of all staff.
Effective systems were in place to monitor and evaluate any concerns or complaints received and to ensure learning outcomes or improvements were identified from these. Staff encouraged people and their relatives to share their concerns and experiences with them.
At our last inspection of Whitehaven in December 2014 we found this service to be good. At this inspection the home remained good.
This inspection took place on 9 December 2014 and was unannounced. When we inspected this service on 6 June 2013 we found it was not meeting minimum standards in the management of medicines. At a follow up inspection on 27 August 2013 the provider had made the necessary improvements. This inspection found the improvements had been sustained.
Whitehaven Residential Home is a care home which does not provide nursing care. It is registered for 15 people, and at the time of our inspection was fully occupied. People living at the home were older people and people living with dementia. They were accommodated on two floors. Shared areas comprised a dining area, a lounge and a quiet lounge. There was an enclosed garden with a paved area. A sign near the front door announced that Whitehaven Residential Home was a “pet-friendly home”.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 told us it was a pleasant place to live and they were looked after well. One family member commented “unique and lovely home with exceptional care”. People were kept safe. Staff had a good understanding of the risk of abuse, how to recognise it and how to report concerns. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and managed in a way that maintained their liberty. There were enough, suitable staff to support people safely. Arrangements were in place to keep medicines safely.
Staff were supported to provide a good standard of care. They received appropriate training and the manager had an effective system of appraisal and supervision. Staff checked people ate and drank enough to avoid the risk of poor nutrition and hydration.
Where people were able to consent, care and support were provided in accordance with their wishes. However where people were not able to consent, we found inconsistencies in the provider’s records of mental capacity assessments.
The Care Quality Commission monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which apply to care homes. We found the manager had procedures in place designed to safeguard people against the risk of being unlawfully deprived of their liberty. However they had not completed the process of making the necessary applications where people were at risk. We have made a recommendation about mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
A family member had commented, “Staff take time to listen and care for residents”. We found the positive, caring relationships established by staff were extended to people’s families and pets. Staff encouraged people to be involved in their care and support and made sure they maintained their dignity and privacy.
People had opportunities to take part in appropriate activities if they wished to do so. Staff responded to people’s preferences and changing needs, and adapted their care and support accordingly.
The service was homely and friendly. A visiting social worker had commented in the visitors’ book, “warm and pleasant atmosphere”. Staff had a strong team work ethos and people’s relations considered the home was well managed. There was a system of checks and audits to make sure the quality of service was sustained.
We carried out an inspection on 6 June 2013 when we identified that people were not always protected against the risks associated with medicines. The provider wrote to us telling us what action they would take.
We carried out an inspection on 27 August 2013 to review the progress the provider had made in taking action to be compliant in the area where we had previously assessed them as non-compliant.
We found that the provider had taken steps to improve administration and recording of medicines.
Staff told us of the medicine adminstration policies, new records and training that had been introduced following our visit.
People we spoke with were happy at the home and we observed that staff intervened and offered support when needed in a sensitive manner.
People's consent was obtained prior to any care and support being provided. There was clear guidance in the home's policies and procedures about what action should be taken if staff thought a person did not have the capacity to make their own decisions. The home ensured relevant health care professionals were contacted when needed.
We observed interaction at lunchtime for approximately 80 minutes, we saw that members of staff spoke to people with respect and sensitivity.
We carried out an inspection on 28 December 2012 when we identified concerns with record keeping, for example the home had not ensured that accidents and incident records had been properly managed for all people. We made a compliance action asking the provider to take action in order that we were reassured that people were in receipt of safe and adequate care. The provider wrote to us and told us what action they were going to take.
At this inspection we found that the provider had taken steps to improve record keeping. However, we found people were not always protected against the risks associated with medicines.
A resident told us "the staff are very good. I came in because I was sick; my health is really well now." Another resident told us "they take great care of me." We spoke with a District Nurse who was visiting the service. The District Nurse told us that their service visited the home everyday, and said "I've never seen anything I've been concerned about. The residents always appear clean, well dressed, and look well fed."
We found that the home had some room for improvement with regards to record keeping. We also found that the provider was working to cover a housekeeping vacancy on the day of our visit.
People at the home told us that they liked living at the home and that the staff were helpful with nothing being too much trouble and the staff were easy to talk to. There were cats living at the home, and people liked having the cats as extra company. Relatives we spoke with told us that the home was 'homely' and spoke about the provider with high regard and said they could also speak freely with staff. The staff conducted themselves in a caring and professional manner.
We observed lunch being served and how staff interacted with people and ensured choice about daily issues such as where to sit. One person told us about the activties and games available, the activities on the day of our visit was a quiz and flower arranging.
Staff told us they received regular training, were supported by the management of the home and that they could speak with senior staff about any concerns they had about the running of the home.