- Care home
Thames House
Assessment report published 20 June 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 24 March to 22 April 2025.
The inspection had been prompted by concerns we had received about the service.
The service is a residential care home with 20 bedrooms. The service supports people with complex mental health needs, brain injuries, complex dementia and neuro disabilities including Huntington’s disease and Parkinson’s.
During this inspection we looked at 21 quality statements. The service was providing a regulated activity to 18 people at the time of the inspection.
We identified 3 breaches of regulation at the service. The breaches related to safe and effective staffing and governance.
We rated the service requires improvement because compliance in some areas of clinical training was low in modules that were highly relevant to safe care, and concerns relating to medicines were identified. Care records required improvement as some were inconsistent, inaccurate and contradictory. Some of the providers policies were overdue for review, including the sepsis policy. Referrals to other services were not always completed in a timely manner, best interest decisions and conditions as part of a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation were not always listed in peoples care records. People’s care was not always person centred, and palliative care required improvement. The service leads and the provider’s quality assurance systems had identified some of the concerns we found during this inspection prior to our visit, but there were gaps in oversight.
However, we did see positive practice including the provider ensuring a continuity of care when people moved between services, a safe and clean environment, an emphasis on promoting staff wellbeing and valuing diversity within the workplace.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.
People's experience of this service
We received mixed feedback from people and relatives regarding the quality of care provided. Whilst some people and relatives told us they felt the care provided was safe and staff treated people with dignity and respect, several relatives told us they had concerns regarding some aspects of the quality of care provided. Relatives told us they were not always involved in assessments and reviews of care. One relative told us, “I assume a care plan has been done. I hope it’s updated. I rely on them [staff]. Getting information out of them is like pulling teeth. The hospital talks to the home. It depends on the member of staff whether I hear about it.” A second relative said, “There’s been no reviews for ages. No one talked to us. I write [person’s] care plans.” However, a third relative stated, “The communication is okay. They [staff] let me know about [person] going to hospital. It is safe and staff take good care of [person] physically, although [person] keeps getting infections.”
Relatives were also concerned regarding the monitoring of people’s food and fluid intake. One relative told us, “[Person] has been taken into hospital twice with dehydration and severe dehydration.”
Relatives felt people had choices, for example regarding how to decorate their room or what to eat. One relative told us, “[Person] has a choice of meals. I’ve got pictures up in [person’s] room; they like their bedroom personalised.” A second relative said, “We’ve had best interest meetings. I’ve stipulated what I want for [person] and staff respect my views and go along with my wishes.”
Relatives commented positively on management arrangements at the service. One relative told us, “On the whole, I’m quite happy with it. It’s the staff, not the management [that are the problem]. On the whole, it’s more than adequate. It’s a pleasant place.” A second relative said, “The manager is very good.”