White Rose Homecare Limited received an overall rating of Good at its first rated inspection, with Safe rated Requires Improvement due to incomplete MAR chart recording and insufficient detail in some moving and handling risk assessments. The service demonstrated strong person-centred care, safe staffing and recruitment practices, and a well-regarded registered manager, with the identified medication recording issue confirmed as addressed post-inspection.
Concerns (5)
moderateMedication management: “Some Medication Administration Record (MAR) charts were in place for people who managed their own medicines but received occasional support from staff. Additional information needed to be added.”
moderateCare planning: “One person's risk assessment for moving and handling said the person needed to be supported to get up from the floor. However, the risk assessment did not give detail of how this should be done.”
minorCare planning: “Some risk assessments lacked evidence of the person, or their family, having been involved in the process.”
minorRecord keeping: “Daily records for people who had been assessed as nutritionally at risk did not always fully reflect the support staff had provided in this area.”
minorConsent / capacity: “Documentation needed to better evidence people's involvement in care planning and consent to support.”
Strengths
· Staff knew what to do if they thought someone was at risk and safeguarding training was in place.
· Safe recruitment processes were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
· A duty team was always available to cover sudden staff shortages.
· Staff received induction training and followed a programme of continuous learning with shadowing of experienced colleagues.
· People and relatives were highly complimentary of all staff, describing them as patient and respectful of dignity and independence.
Quality-Statement breakdown (22)
safe: Using medicines safelyRequires improvement
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementRequires improvement
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseGood
safe: Staffing and recruitmentGood
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionGood
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongGood
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawGood
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceGood
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced dietRequires improvement
effective: Staff working with other agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely careGood
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceGood
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityGood
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceGood
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careGood
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and control and to meet their needs and preferencesGood
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsGood
responsive: Supporting people to develop and maintain relationships to avoid social isolationGood
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsGood
responsive: End of life care and supportGood
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringGood
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffGood
safe:Insufficient evidence to rateeffective:Insufficient evidence to ratecaring:Insufficient evidence to rateresponsive:Insufficient evidence to ratewell-led:Insufficient evidence to rate
This was the first inspection of White Rose Homecare, a newly registered domiciliary care agency supporting only two people at the time, resulting in an 'Inspected but not rated' outcome across all five key questions due to insufficient service history. The service demonstrated positive foundations in safeguarding awareness, staff training, and person-centred values, with minor gaps identified in care plan detail, record-keeping, medication competency checks, mental capacity documentation, and formal quality-monitoring processes.
Concerns (5)
minorRecord keeping: “Two examples were discussed with the registered manager whereby changes to people's circumstances had not been reflected in care records. These changes were known to staff, but records had not been updated.”
minorCare planning: “Care plans contained aspects of person-centredness, although they required more detail to show what support was needed at each visit.”
minorStaff competency: “Staff had been trained in administering medication, although a formal competency check was needed in line with national guidance.”
minorConsent / capacity: “A mental capacity assessment was needed to formally record this and prompt a best interests assessment. The registered manager said they would follow this up.”
minorGovernance: “The registered manager told us they asked people and relatives for feedback about the service they received. However, this quality checking was not being recorded.”
Strengths
· Staff were able to recognise signs of abuse and knew how to report this; no safeguarding incidents had occurred.
· Positive relative feedback: 'They're really thoughtful. They've been a life saver.'
· Staff received mandatory training including manual handling, first aid, food hygiene, nutrition, basic life support and safeguarding.
· Supervision records for the registered manager and care staff contained sufficient detail covering training and support needs.
· Care plans recognised people's equality, diversity and human rights including preferred gender of care staff.
Quality-Statement breakdown (25)
safe: Systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuseInsufficient evidence to rate
safe: Assessing risk, safety monitoring and managementInsufficient evidence to rate
safe: Staffing and recruitmentInsufficient evidence to rate
safe: Using medicines safelyInsufficient evidence to rate
safe: Preventing and controlling infectionInsufficient evidence to rate
safe: Learning lessons when things go wrongInsufficient evidence to rate
effective: Staff support: induction, training, skills and experienceInsufficient evidence to rate
effective: Supporting people to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet
Insufficient evidence to rate
effective: Staff working with other agencies to provide consistent, effective, timely careInsufficient evidence to rate
effective: Ensuring consent to care and treatment in line with law and guidanceInsufficient evidence to rate
effective: Assessing people's needs and choices; delivering care in line with standards, guidance and the lawInsufficient evidence to rate
caring: Ensuring people are well treated and supported; respecting equality and diversityInsufficient evidence to rate
caring: Supporting people to express their views and be involved in making decisions about their careInsufficient evidence to rate
caring: Respecting and promoting people's privacy, dignity and independenceInsufficient evidence to rate
responsive: Planning personalised care to ensure people have choice and control and to meet their needs and preferencesInsufficient evidence to rate
responsive: Meeting people's communication needsInsufficient evidence to rate
responsive: Supporting people to develop and maintain relationships to avoid social isolationInsufficient evidence to rate
responsive: Improving care quality in response to complaints or concernsInsufficient evidence to rate
responsive: End of life care and supportInsufficient evidence to rate
well-led: Promoting a positive culture that is person-centred, open, inclusive and empoweringInsufficient evidence to rate
well-led: How the provider understands and acts on the duty of candourInsufficient evidence to rate
well-led: Managers and staff being clear about their roles, and understanding quality performance, risks and regulatory requirementsInsufficient evidence to rate
well-led: Engaging and involving people using the service, the public and staffInsufficient evidence to rate
well-led: Continuous learning and improving careInsufficient evidence to rate
well-led: Working in partnership with othersInsufficient evidence to rate