The Thatched House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.
This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. The provider had previously failed to ensure the premises and equipment used were clean, safe and properly maintained. This was a breach of regulations. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff and the registered manager knew people well, they knew what people needed to enable them to live safely and also understood their mental wellbeing needs. Staff understood the best way to communicate with people, for example where there were triggers that might upset people who were living with dementia, staff knew them, and to avoid the subjects with those people. This had reduced people’s anxiety. A relative told us, “They ask questions about how [my relative] likes care, or what [my relative] was like at home in the past.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. We had some concerns about record keeping. People’s care plans included clear guidance for staff on how to communicate with people. Plans included people’s interests, for example one plan mentioned using a memory box to engage a person in talking about her life. Care plans included information on health needs including nutrition requirements, such as food consistency details agreed with the speech and language therapist (SALT). Staff ensured consultations with other healthcare professionals were recorded and any changes made to the plan. The Thatched House used an electronic system to manage care plans; however these were also printed for ease of access. We discussed the risks around having duplicated notes. The registered manager told us changes were always annotated on paper plans immediately when they were changed on the electronic system. However, this remained a risk.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

People told us staff knew them well and their relatives explained how staff were quick to add information to people’s care notes. A relative told us staff knew his relative well and that they had been pleased staff read all the hospital notes before admission, so staff already had an understanding of the person. Staff shared information about any changes in people’s needs at the end of each shift. The registered manager and provider spoke regularly to other health care professionals as necessary. The health care professional we spoke to was very positive about care at the home.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff managed people’s physical and mental needs to ensure they remained healthy and as happy as possible. People told us staff were kind, and several relatives told us they were able to use face-time to speak with their relatives on days they could not visit. Staff were happy to help with this. People were encouraged to be independent when possible and people we spoke to were very happy with the support they received. Relatives told us how staff prompted people who might otherwise forget how to wash and dress themselves.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care plans were regularly reviewed and updated. The provider told us they had frequent communication with local GPs, dieticians and other appropriate health care professionals to ensure people’s care was suitable and that outcomes were positive. Relatives were asked to attend monthly care plan reviews when people were unable to give meaningful input in their own care. People were always included in their care where possible. A relative told us they knew staff well, by name and said, “They are very good, the girls, they are very observant.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People and relatives were happy with the care they received, they understood they had rights to consent or refuse treatment and this was recorded in the care plans. Where people were living with Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in place these were recorded. When people struggled with understanding consent, staff spoke to them kindly, explaining or making best interest decisions for people.