The White House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this provider at this location which they took over from the previous provider in July 2024. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people not always being treated with respect and dignity. People had been left living in a service that smelled strongly of urine. There were occasions where staff were impatient with people when they needed support. Other staff were seen to be kind, courteous and gentle with people.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their dignity. The provider had not considered the impact on people living in their own home with the constant smell of urine; this was undignified for people. The provider also had not considered that some of the images they used of people on the service’s social media page, who had not consented, were undignified. People we spoke with said most of the staff were kind and caring with comments including, “It’s nice here. The staff are lovely. They look after you” and “The night staff are marvellous.” However, people also said there were some staff that were not as friendly. Comments included, “I don’t like some of the staff, day staff don’t chat with me much, I ask a question, and they don’t answer you back.” We observed in the main staff were very kind and considerate of people. However, we observed some instances where certain staff did not ensure people were treated with dignity and respect. One person was given an injection by a visiting professional whilst they were sitting in the lounge. The member of staff did not take the person into their room to have this undertaken in a private space.

People did not always have choices around their care delivery. There were people that preferred a shower; however, the only shower they could use was on a different floor. They told us they were only infrequently offered by staff to use the shower. People did not have a choice of meals each day as there was only 1 option cooked. The chef told us they could make an omelette or a jacket potato if people wanted, however we did not see staff ask people if the actually wanted the meal that was being cooked that day. The lounge was poorly set out with all the chairs set around the walls of the room without any space in between giving people some space from the person sat next to them.

However, there were other aspects of care delivery that ensured people were treated as individuals. People were able to walk around all the communal areas of the home. We observed 1 person chose to have their meal in their room that day and staff accommodated this. There were religious services at the service for those that wished to attend. For those people that communication needs, staff ensured when they spoke to them, that the person understood.

People were encouraged and supported to maintain their relationships with their family and friends. A member of staff had created a pleasant space in one of the lounges, for people to go and sit with their family and friends when they visited. We saw this space being used for this. People were provided with meaningful and varied activities by the activities coordinator. We saw people enjoyed participating and the staff ensured that all people were given the option to be involved. There were people living upstairs that we saw were able to independently go and down to their room when they wanted. One person asked if they could have an airer in their room to hang their clothes when they were washed, and this was accommodated for them.

In the main, people’s needs were responded to from staff were attentive and caring. When people stood next to staff, we saw staff gently rubbing people’s arms and offering gentle reassurance. One member of staff was seen to sit next to a person who was not eating their meal, they tried to encourage them. When they saw they were not interested in the meal, they offered them the pudding which the person ate immediately. We observed 1 person spilled their drink during lunchtime. Staff were very quick to come to attend to the person, making sure the drink did not spill on their clothes. It was cleared up promptly and a replacement drink given to the person.

There were, however, moments where staff did not respond to people in a caring way. We observed 1 person asked a member of staff if they could have a hot drink instead of a cold drink. The member of staff responded in a loud tone, “You’ll have to wait until later for that. At the moment I am doing the drinks with lunch.” On another occasion a person asked the same member of staff for a serviette and the member of staff abruptly said that they would have to wait a moment. This member of staff told us, “They listen to me. As I am sure you have picked up, I have a very loud voice and that works, because they listen to me.” However, the member of staff had not considered that this might not be liked by people.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Since taking over the service in July 2024, the provider had not changed the care recording system. All staff were having to share 1 tablet to record people’s care notes on them. We observed the kitchen did not have a dish washer and staff were having to wash the entire homes crockery by hand. This was despite the provider stating on their ‘Home Improvement Plan’ in June 2024, that these areas were a priority. A member of staff told us, “I haven’t noticed any improvement with the new owners. When I asked for something, you don’t get it.” We also noted that there was no petty cash for staff within the service, so staff were having to purchase smaller items from their own money, including activity resources and people’s continence aids and claim this back from the provider. We also observed a senior member of staff told off a member of staff in a loud tone and in front of visitors and people that lived there. This was not dignified for the member of staff. Staff told us that the manager had started in February 2025 and felt very supported by them and the deputy manager. Comments from them included, “The new manager is bringing in new ideas. [The manager] is making it better. We work together” and “Now [manager] is here I think it is going to be amazing. We work well together.”