Archived: Thornbank

Updated 11 April 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This unannounced comprehensive inspection on 14 March 2017 was carried out by one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We reviewed information we had received about the service such as notifications. This is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We also reviewed all other information sent to us from other stakeholders for example the local authority, Healthwatch and members of the public.

We spoke with thirteen people who used the service, five relatives and one visiting healthcare professional. We observed the interactions between staff and people. We spoke with the registered manager and ten members of staff including care, domestic, catering and maintenance. We also received electronic feedback from two health and social care professionals.

To help us assess how people’s care needs were being met, we reviewed four people’s care records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service, recruitment, training, and systems for monitoring the quality of the service.

Updated 11 April 2018

Thornbank is a residential care home that provides care for up to 33 older people. Some people using the service were living with dementia. At the time of this unannounced inspection of 14 March 2018 there were 30 people who used the service.

At our last inspection on 12 February 2016, we rated the service overall Good, The key questions Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well Led were rated good. The key question Effective was rated Requires Improvement with a breach of Regulation 11 of the HSCA Regulated Activities 2014, Need for consent. Shortfalls included people had not been assessed properly in relation to their mental capacity and where required best interests meetings had not been completed.

We asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key question of effective. The provider submitted an action plan to us about the measures they were taking to address the concerns found at the previous inspection. This included training in the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards, competency assessments for all staff, weekly observations by the registered manager and improvements to people’s care records regarding their capacity.

During this inspection 14 March 2018 we found that the improvements had been fully embedded into practice and Effective is now rated as Good. We found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The service continued to provide a safe service to people. This included systems in place intended to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse, falls and with their medicines.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. They were trained and supported to meet people’s needs. Staff were available when people needed assistance and had been recruited safely.

People were complimentary about the care they received and the approach of the registered manager and staff. They told us that they felt safe and well cared for. Staff had developed good relationships with people. Staff consistently protected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.

Systems were in place to receive, record, store and administer medicines safely. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People enjoyed a positive meal time experience and were enabled to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services.

People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. They participated in meaningful activities and were supported to pursue their interests. The service listened to people’s experiences, concerns and complaints and took action where needed.

The environment met the needs of the people who lived there. All areas of the home were clean and in good state of repair with equipment maintained.

The registered manager was accessible, supportive and had good leadership skills. Staff were aware of the values of the provider and understood their roles and responsibilities. Morale was good within the workforce.

The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. There was a culture of listening to people and positively learning from events so similar incidents were not repeated. As a result the quality of the service continued to improve.