We carried out a review of the data available to us about The White House (Curdridge) Limited 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 The White House (Curdridge) Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
The White House is a family owned, specialist dementia care home and provides accommodation with personal care for up to 46 people. The service supports both younger and older people living with dementia and other mental health conditions. There were 45 people using the service when we inspected.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The White House provided outstanding care for people living with dementia and other mental health disorders. We received consistently positive feedback from people, their relatives and health professionals who felt staff went the extra mile and delivered excellent care that was responsive and based around people’s individual needs. Staff working at The White House understood the needs of people using the service and supported people in an exceptionally personalised way. The impact this had on people was outstanding and had resulted in people continuing to live an active life with choice evident throughout.
Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with people and their families. Staff were highly motivated and demonstrated a commitment to providing the best quality care to people in a compassionate way. People’s privacy and dignity was always maintained.
The home provided a well-designed environment for people living with dementia, which enhanced their wellbeing, quality of life and independence. We received outstanding feedback about the gardens and building which people were able to move freely and without any restrictions.
People were happy with the activities on offer and many opportunities were available for people to participate in. This ensured people had a meaningful life and created a relaxing and calm atmosphere around the home.
People were supported to stay safe, protected from abuse and risks were assessed and well managed. There were sufficient numbers of qualified, skilled and experienced staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Staff were not hurried or rushed and when people requested care or support, this was delivered quickly. The provider operated safe and effective recruitment procedures. Medicines were stored and administered safely. Clear and accurate medicines records were maintained.
People, relatives and professionals consistently told us about the excellent care they received from well trained staff who demonstrated the knowledge and skills required to deliver outstanding care. Staff informed us they completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction programme before being permitted to work unsupervised.
There was a strong emphasis on the importance of eating and drinking well. Mealtimes were encouraged to be a positive and sociable experience for people. People were supported with their nutritional needs in a flexible manner. People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes in relation to food and this helped to ensure people received outstanding care.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The culture of the service was open, transparent and progressive. All the staff were committed to continuous improvement of the service and individual care. People using the service, their relatives and the staff felt valued.
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 outstanding (published 29 July 2017).
Why we inspected This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
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.
The service is overseen by the owner/provider and the registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People felt safe living at The White House and they were very much at the heart of the service. We received consistent outstanding feedback from people’s families and health professionals. Health professionals felt the service went the extra mile and were extremely experienced at looking after people living with dementia. People received excellent care that was based around their individual needs and that ensured care was personalised and responsive.
Staff working at The White House understood the needs of people using the service and supported people in an exceptionally personalised way. Staff knew people well and we saw that care was provided respectfully and sensitively, taking into account people’s different needs.
The home was designed to create a suitable environment for people living with dementia. People’s wellbeing and independence had been enhanced by the environment. We received outstanding feedback about the gardens and building around which people were able to move freely and without any restrictions. This ensured people had a meaningful life and created a relaxing and calm atmosphere around the home.
The home had introduced its own pub called ‘Kev’s Corner’. People were very happy with the pub which was used to provide many activities and opportunities for social interaction.
The home was responsive to people’s needs and wishes. People were able to choose what activities they took part in and suggest other activities they would like to complete. The registered manager developed and promoted community involvement within the home. Regular trips in the community were arranged twice a week, where people could choose where to visit.
Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at The White House to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.
The risks to people were minimized through risk assessments. There were plans in place for foreseeable emergencies and fire safety checks were carried out.
People received varied meals including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes and offered alternatives if people did not want the menu choice of the day.
People were cared for by a motivated and well trained staff team, who always put people first. Staff had the specialist knowledge and skills required to meet people’s needs living with dementia.
The home had thought of creative and productive ways to deliver exceptional dementia care. The registered manager had organised a mobile virtual dementia tour at the home which impacted on how staff communicated with people living with dementia.
The home had received an award for being a pet friendly home and people and their families gained great comfort from interacting with the animals at the home.
Special days were held on each unit which provided people the opportunity to choose something they would really like to do for the day. Some people chose to visit somewhere while others liked to be treated in the home.
Staff received regular support and received regular one to one sessions of supervision to discuss areas of development. Staff informed us they completed a wide range of training and felt it supported them in their job role. New staff completed an induction programme before being permitted to work unsupervised.
People felt they were treated with kindness and said their privacy and dignity was respected. Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and were clear that people had the right to make their own choices. Staff sought consent from people before providing care and support. The ability of people to make decisions was assessed in line with legal requirements to ensure their rights were protected and their liberty was not restricted unlawfully. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
The registered manager maintained a high level of communication with people through a range of newsletters and meetings. ‘Residents meetings’ and surveys allowed people and their families to provide feedback, which was used to improve the service. People felt listened to and a complaints procedure was in place.
Regular audits of the service were carried out to assess and monitor the quality of the service. The home had recently been accredited with ‘investors in people’ and the registered manager wanted to improve communication amongst the staff. Staff felt supported by the registered manager. There were appropriate management arrangements in place.
This inspection visit took place on 13 and 14 October 2014 and was unannounced.
The White House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 46 younger and older people who are living with dementia and other mental health illnesses. There were 45 people living at the home at the time of this inspection. The home is comprised of the main house and three purpose built interconnecting units, each with its own unit manager and staff team.
The service is overseen by the owner/provider and the registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff working at The White House understood the needs of people using the service. We saw that care was provided respectfully and sensitively, taking into account people’s different needs. Staff took account of people’s personal anxieties and worked as a team to support and reassure people in their care. People who use the service spoke appreciatively and positively of the staff and the care they received.
Throughout the inspection we observed examples of creative and personalised practice. We saw staff use smart technology to support people to have freedom to move around the different parts of the service safely and without restriction. The staff worked as a team to share information and problem solve. The provider and registered manager had built up good links with relevant professionals and organisations to support and implement good practice within the service.
Staff received a comprehensive induction and training programme to support them to meet people’s individual needs. Staff had received training to support them with specific conditions and to understand and implement relevant legislation such as The Mental Capacity Act 2005. They all fully understood their roles and responsibilities as well as the vision and values of the service. Staff were supported to make sure they provided safe and effective care to the people using the service.
The provider had employed skilled staff and undertaken all necessary checks prior to them commencing employment. Staff were supported to take on roles such as ‘champions’ to share and implement best practice and promote discussion on how the service could improve. Staff were able to influence the running of the service through making suggestions for changes.
All staff were involved in the monitoring of the quality of the service. The provider and registered manager had clear systems in place to assess the quality of the service and to implement and track progress with improvements. People who use the service were encouraged to be actively involved in the running of the service. The provider demonstrated a drive to continually improve the service and the experience of people in their care.
Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Two visitors we spoke with said that their relative 'Talks more, relates to people and makes eye contact'. They told us that they could visit at any time and said 'It's lovely to walk in and see staff with her, laughing and joking'. Another visitor told us they had been involved in their relative's care planning and said that 'Staff are extremely friendly and very caring'.
We found that appropriate arrangements were in place to protect people against the risks associated with medicines. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. A person who used the service told us 'I have called the staff in the night and they come so quickly. I feel very safe and happy here'. We saw that people were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.
All five people told us they were happy at The White House. People told us 'It's good here'. 'Staff are very friendly, and welcoming to visitors, caring'. 'The staff look out for people who need more support'.
Individual needs of people had been assessed and were reviewed. Care plans updated in the light of changing needs. People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.
We looked at arrangements in place for safeguarding. We found that people were protected because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening.
Staff rotas, training records, observation of staff supporting people and discussion with people demonstrated that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.
The provider had in place an effective system to assess and monitor the quality of service.
A relative told us 'the staff are really good. They make sure I am involved. I don't feel as though they have taken over. It's a partnership. I feel valued, and my knowledge and opinions are valued'.