- Homecare service
Thornage Hall Independent Living
Assessment report published 9 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We visited the service on 18 and 20 May 2026. The inspection was carried out due to the age of the previous rating when it was rated good in 2018. The service is registered for up to 28 people with a learning disability and, or autism. At the time of our inspection, 22 people living at the service received a regulated activity of personal care.
People worked on the bio-dynamic farm and were self-sufficient and had access to a range of meaningful activities which taught them valuable life skills.
There was a registered manager in post who was supported by a full team of staff.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgement's about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
We judged people to have a meaningful life with access to the community, and they were able to participate in things they enjoyed with hobbies, interests, and good connections with family. Staff supported people to stay healthy and access balanced diets, regular exercise and health care including alternative therapies.
People’s independence was promoted and risks associated with their environment were assessed and reduced as far as reasonably possible. People participated in workshops which included crafts, arts, and computing.
People were supported to keep their homes well maintained and some people were independent with their finances, medicines, and travel.
Improvements we identified during the inspection were addressed in a timely way. Whilst we felt this was a good service; we raised concerns about medicines and accountability. Some of the newer staff were not clear about medication processes where people self- administered, staff were not following the medicines policy and checking daily that medicines had been taken appropriately. Staff were acting in accordance with the persons wishes and checking weekly, but processes need to be followed and clear. The registered manager took appropriate action, and the staff induction process had been strengthened very recently.
We raised concerns about site security. Risks associated with site security should be more robust and if people were choosing to visit each other, whilst this should be encouraged, staff should consider people’s rights to privacy.
The houses were in good order with designated maintenance and robust refurbishment, replacement, and auditing to ensure the building and equipment were well maintained.We discussed with the maintenance team and the registered manager about the need for dynamic risk assessment to take into account changes in people’s sensory and cognitive needs.Traditionally ground floor windows were not restricted, and we found wardrobes were not fixed to the wall and there were internal steps, uncovered radiators and pipework. Whilst we assured there was no immediate risks to people further consideration should be given to future proofing the service as people's needs change.
Staff recruitment was robust and new staff told us they were well supported through their induction with regular check ins and induction booklet. Staff completed training relevant to people’s needs.
There was a strong emphasis on culture and the management team collaborated closely with people, staff, and stakeholders to help promote a positive safety culture and ensure the service was adapted to people’s individual needs. Care reviews had taken place, and the service was well supported by the GP and other health care professionals.
There were good quality assurance systems in place to help ensure the service was run and managed effectively in line with people’s needs and relevant legislation. Feedback was sought and used to improve the service people received and was inclusive of visitors and relatives to the service who could also contribute to the process.
People's experience of this service
We spoke to people using the service and their relatives. Everyone we spoke with agreed this service was unique and although over the years the operating model had changed, people were satisfied they received good support and opportunities to live their lives fully.
Accommodation on and off site supported different levels of independence. The farm and workshops offered a variety of different opportunities. We spoke with people,1 person had learnt to drive a tractor, another told us how they helped to support calves being born and shearing alpacas, another told us about their weaving and how produce was sold to the public. Another person had their artwork displayed around the service.
The observed rapport between staff and people was positive with staff noting how people were feeling and offering emotional and practical support.
Relatives felt connected and involved with the service and well informed about the direction of the service and its ethos and informed about their relative’s care.
Some people told us they had learnt to play musical instruments.Weekly whole site meetings took place and focused on plans for the week and any adjustments needed.
Another person said they liked their music classes, had been to see an Abba tribute show, liked pizza,and were looking forwards to their holiday.
Another said, “I like bowling and going to Fuse nightclub in Norwich.There are a few of us that go.”
Weekly meetings helped to focus on what people wanted to do and helped the registered manager plan the rotas accordingly. There was a strong emphasis on focusing on people’s goals and aspirations,this included work placements, holidays, and public transport.