We carried out a review of the data available to us about Sue Ryder - Thorpe Hall on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Sue Ryder - Thorpe Hall, you can give feedback on this service.
However:
Sue Ryder – Thorpe Hall is operated by Sue Ryder, a national charitable organisation which specialises in providing palliative and neurological care to people living with life-limiting conditions. The hospice has 20 inpatient beds. Facilities include an inpatient unit, hospice at home service, day services and family and bereavement support services.
The hospice provides end of life and palliative care for adults. We inspected all services provided.
We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short notice announced inspection on 10 December 2019, along with an unannounced visit to the hospice on 18 December 2019.
To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.
Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Services we rate
Our rating of this hospice improved. We rated it as Outstanding overall.
We found areas of outstanding practice:
Staff treated patients and their families with compassion and kindness, respected their dignity and privacy, and went above and beyond expectations to meet their individual needs and wishes. Staff did all they could to support the emotional needs of patients, families and carers to minimise their distress. Staff helped patients live every day to the fullest.
Services were delivered in a way to ensure flexibility, choice and continuity of care and were tailored to meet patients’ individual needs and wishes. The service planned and provided care in a way that fully met the needs of local people and the communities served. It also worked proactively with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care and improve services.
It was easy for people to give feedback. Concerns and complaints were taken seriously and investigated, and improvements were made in response to feedback where possible. Patients could access services when they needed them.
Leaders ran services well and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff were motivated to provide the best care they could for their patients. There was a common focus on improving the quality and sustainability of care and people’s experiences. Staff were proud to work at the service and felt respected, supported and valued. Leaders operated effective governance processes and staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients, staff and the local community.
We found areas of good practice:
The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.
We found areas of practice that require improvement:
Patients’ preferred place of care and preferred place of death was not consistently recorded on the electronic system.
Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.
Sue Ryder - Thorpe Hall is a 20 bed hospice located on the outskirts of Peterborough city centre. It is registered to provide diagnostic screening procedures, transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely and treatment of disease, disorder and injury. The hospice also provides accommodation with a specialist palliative care service for those people living with or affected by serious illness. An in-patient service and day centre to adults is also provided. The service is currently developing a ‘hospice at home’ service to provide care to people in a home setting.
Accommodation at the hospice consists of rooms for two to three people with separate communal bathrooms. There are internal and external communal areas, including lounge areas, a chapel which can also be used as a multi faith room, garden, coffee shop and shop for people and their visitors to use.
This unannounced inspection was carried out on 22 May 2015. On the day of the inspection there were 16 people accommodated at the hospice. At our previous inspection on 29 August 2013 the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.
There was a registered manager in place. They had been in the role of registered manager since 04 December 2014. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and report on what we find. There were systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making and, where appropriate, applications would be made to the authorising agencies for people who needed these safeguards.
People and their relatives were happy with the service provided by the hospice. Staff treated people and their relatives with kindness and compassion, whilst delivering care and treatment in an unrushed manner.
People’s wishes and preferences, including end of life wishes, were recorded within the care records as guidance for staff. Staff only commenced care for people if they could safely meet their needs. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the wishes, including cultural and religious needs of people with an end of life illness.
There were a sufficient number of staff and volunteers in all areas of the service. Safety checks were undertaken on staff and volunteers before they commenced work at the service to ensure that they were of good character. Staff were aware of their responsibility to report any concerns around poor care and treatment. Staff were trained to provide effective care which met people’s individual care and support needs. They were supported by the management to maintain and develop their skills through ‘121’ supervision, competency checks and a meeting to set and agree personal development and training objectives.
Individual health risks to people were identified by staff and plans were put into place to minimise these risks. People were provided with adequate amounts of food and drink to meet their hydration and nutrition needs. The service worked with other health and social care providers to make sure that people’s health, care and support needs were supported and met. There were arrangements in place for the safe management, administration and storage of people’s prescribed medicines.
People were supported to raise any suggestions or concerns that they might have had with staff and the management team. Any issues raised were actioned by management to improve the service.
There was an on-going quality monitoring process in place to monitor the quality of support provided for people and identify areas of improvement required within the service.
During our inspection of 29 August 2013 we reviewed the provider's infection control policy and found that it followed Department of Health (DH) guidance for the monitoring and management of infection control. People were assured that they were cared for in a clean and safe environment.
We asked to see the records for complaints made since our inspection in 2012. We found that there had only been two which had been responded to within the provider's response times to the satisfaction of the complainant. People we spoke to told us that they had never had any reason to complain.
People told us that staff were available when they needed them. People were generally complimentary about the home's food and one person told us, 'The food always smells and tastes good and much of it is home made".
One relative told us that she couldn't fault the care provided and that they had nothing but praise for the staff.
One person told us that because the controlled medicines were kept on the second floor they sometimes had to wait a short while for their pain relief medicines.
People could be confident that they would be protected from abuse as the provider had information, although not on display, available to make people aware of who to contact and how to raise a safeguarding concern.
From the staff training records we viewed we saw evidence that staff were kept up-to-date with training appropriate to their role.
People we spoke with told us that there were always sufficient staff on duty and that they appeared competent in what they did.
We saw evidence of detailed and comprehensive records for all statutory inspection requirements. For example, gas safety and electrical testing throughout the hospice.