Thornford Park

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met patients’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating remained unchanged because

Care plans were not always holistic and personalised.

Staff did not ensure that information was always readily available that met the Accessible Information Standard such as easy read for patients on the learning disability and autism wards.This was a breach of regulation 9: Person-centred care.

However,

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, for example, patients with mobility issues were provided with walking aids, shower chairs and wheelchairs. There was step-free access ramps to wards.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the patients using the service felt empowered to give their views. The provider collected feedback from patients about their experiences including through patients and carer surveys, patients and carer forums, community meetings and share your experience feedback forms.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We make sure patients are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

The provider did not take all practicable steps to ensure that care and treatment provided to patients was consistently appropriate, met their needs and reflected their preferences. For example, care plans were not always written in patients’ voice. Staff told us they tried to work with patients to plan their care, however, that some patients refused to engage in the process.

The provider’s 2025 service user survey report showed that 88% of patients agreed that staff involved them in their care plan. However, of the 18 patients we asked how staff worked with them to plan their care on this inspection, 11 patients said they either did not have a copy of their care plan, staff did not engage with them in planning their care or they did not know they were meant to have a care plan.

We reviewed records of a person on Adbury ward who was reported as diabetic. There were no specific care or treatment plans around their diabetes. We saw in the person’s notes that the person was quite concerned about their diabetes, but no action had been taken. Another person on Kingsclere ward had low blood pressure during a physical health check and the doctors requested that staff monitored the person’s blood pressure every four hours. However, at the time of our assessment staff could not locate the observation forms to confirm whether this had been done.

Staff told us all patients had a named nursed and a key support worker who met with patients weekly to discuss their care. However, 4 patients told us they had not had any conversation with their named nurse. One person told us they did not know they had a named nurse.

The seclusion suite on Tadley ward where a person was being supported was very dirty with a large number of takeaway boxes and food from several days left in the middle of their bedroom. We raised this with the provider, and they told us there were ongoing conversations about how they would manage this. Although staff had raised the poor state of the person’s environment as a concern at previous multidisciplinary meetings, there were no specific care or management plans regarding how staff would support this person with cleaning and hygiene.

While staff told us they communicated with patients so that they understood their care and treatment, including finding effective ways to communicate with patients with communication difficulties, on Tadley ward (a ward for patients with a learning disability) the information on display did not meet accessible Information Standard for the client group such as easy read. The Accessible Information Standard aims to make sure that patients who have a disability, impairment or sensory loss are provided with information that they can easily read or understand, and with support, so they can communicate easily with health and social care services.

We understand the diverse health and care needs of patients and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

Staff told us that they were reintroducing education and work opportunities for patients. The occupational therapy leads told us the service used to work with the local college to provide educational opportunities but that this had ended. However, the provider were working towards partnering with other educational providers to provide education and work experiences for patients. Two patients were in paid employment and another person reported they were volunteering in the hospital shop. One person reported that staff was supporting them to become proficient in Maths and English language.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community. At the time of our assessment, we saw that staff had arranged a visit from the local Imam for a Muslim person. The hospital had a multifaith room which was readily available to patients.

We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

The service did not always provide information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. For example, information about the service on how to make a complaint or access to other services were not in Easy Read format on Tadley ward. Easy read documents on Kingsclere ward were kept in a folder in the communal area, and not all patients knew where they were.

There was information on noticeboards on how patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. When patients wanted to make a formal complaint, staff supported them to do so.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. Information governance systems included confidentiality of patients records.

Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about patients’ progress. Staff ensured that patients and their families were invited to meetings including patients ward rounds and other care and treatment review meetings.

We make it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. The provider had both an informal and formal complaint process in place. All informal complaints were dealt with by the ward managers. If patients still wanted to make a formal complaint, they were then given a form which was sent to the senior management team. Formal complaints were reviewed and investigated by other ward managers for impartiality.

When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback from staff. Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately.

Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, for example, patients with mobility issues were provided with walking aids, shower chairs and wheelchairs. There were step-free access ramps to wards.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff ensured patients had access to post-discharge care including Section 117 aftercare, community mental health services and crisis services as required.

Staff planned for patients’ discharge, including good liaison with care co-ordinators. The provider informed us there were patients whose discharges had been delayed due lack of appropriate community placements.

We actively seek out and listen to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the patients using the service felt empowered to give their views. The provider collected feedback from patients about their experiences including through patients and carer surveys, patients and carer forums, community meetings and share your experience feedback forms.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable patients or patients with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights.

We support patients to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff reviewed patients’ care pathway monthly at multidisciplinary meetings and at patients’ 6 monthly care and treatment reviews with contributions from all disciplines, family members and representatives from other relevant external agencies.

Patients had a discharge or transfer plan in place which was developed collaboratively with the patients, family members as well as other agencies including, the probation service, victim liaison service and MAPPA. As a part of the discharge planning, a member of the nursing team and the social worker visited any prospective placement with the person.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care, treatment and their future.Care for patients who were nearing the end of their life was managed and communicated in a sensitive and dignified way.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs.