You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 29 September 2017

This inspection took place on 16 June 2017 and it was unannounced. At the last comprehensive inspection in December 2015, we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the assessment of risks to people living in the service and the information provided to staff in order to mitigate those risks. We also found a lack of evidence with regards to people giving their consent to receiving care and treatment at the service and people’s care had not been provided in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). This was because assessments had not been carried out to check whether people had mental capacity to make informed decisions about specific aspects of their care. We received a provider action plan which stated the service would meet the regulations by August 2016.

During this comprehensive inspection we found that improvements had been made in all areas that we had previously identified.

Thorpedale provides accommodation, care and support for up to seven people with a learning disability. Some people may have a diagnosis of autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the service.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 felt safe. Staff were knowledgeable with regards to safeguarding people and understood their responsibilities to report concerns. There were effective safeguarding procedures in place and staff had received safeguarding training.

Potential risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing had been identified and personalised risk assessments were in place. The assessments gave clear guidance to staff on how individual risks to people could be minimised.

People received their medicines as prescribed. There were effective systems in place for the safe storage and management of medicine and regular audits were completed.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs. Staff recruitment was managed safely and robust procedures were followed to ensure that staff were suitable for the role they had been appointed to, prior to commencing work.

Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals and felt supported in their roles. A full induction was completed by staff when they commenced work at the service followed by an ongoing programme of training and development. Staff were positive about the training they received.

People were supported to make decisions about their care and support. Decisions made on behalf of people were in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Consent was gained from people before any care or support was provided.

A varied, balanced diet was offered at the service and people were very complimentary about the meals provided to them. People were supported to access the services of health and care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing. Care plans detailed people’s support needs in relation to their health and the support required from the service.

People and their relatives spoke positively about staff. They told us that staff were caring, kind and friendly. Staff engaged people in social conversation and understood their needs and preferences.

People felt involved in deciding the care there were to receive and how this was to be given. People's needs had been assessed prior to admission at the service and individualised care plans took account of their needs, preferences and choices. Care plans and risk assessments had been regularly reviewed and updated to ensure that they were reflective of people's current needs.

People were encoura

Inspection areas



Updated 29 September 2017

The service was safe.

People felt safe and were supported by staff who were knowledgeable about safeguarding people from harm.

Detailed risk assessments were in place to help protect and promote people’s safety and well-being.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and robust recruitment procedures were in place.

People received their medicines as prescribed and the service had systems to ensure medicines were managed safely.



Updated 29 September 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had undertaken a variety of training and had the skills to provide the care and support required by people. Staff felt supported and had regular supervision and appraisals.

People’s consent to the care and support they received was sought.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to relevant healthcare professionals.



Updated 29 September 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that were kind, caring and friendly.

People's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted by staff.

Staff knew people well and respected their choices and preferences.

People were provided with a range of information regarding the services available to them.



Updated 29 September 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans in place were personalised and reflected people’s individual requirements.

People were encouraged and supported to participate in a range of activities, based upon their preferences.

There was an effective system to manage complaints and people were aware of this.



Updated 29 September 2017

The service was well-led.

People and staff spoke highly of the registered manager.

The system for monitoring the quality of the service was effective and used to drive continuous improvements in the service.

The service had a positive, open culture amongst the staff team and staff felt management were supportive and approachable.

People were encouraged to give feedback on the service provided.