The Thatched House

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The Thatched House was decorated in a homely way, there were various areas for people to sit, such as a lounge with a television, a quieter reading area and a foyer area nearer the door and office where some people liked to watch the activity of the home. People were able to be part of their care. We saw during our visits that people were confident to talk to staff if they wanted anything and staff were quick to respond.

Care plans were updated with relative input when necessary and staff used end of shift handovers to ensure any care changes were shared with all staff. Staff understood person centred care, a staff member told us, ““Everyone is different and likes different things. We get to know every resident, we know what keeps them calm. We try to keep everyone calm and happy.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People were able to access care from other healthcare professionals when needed. Community health care professionals visited the home. We spoke with a visiting healthcare professional who was very positive about staff and care at The Thatched House. People were able to choose how their health care was managed.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider communicated well with people and their relatives. We saw staff talking to people and explaining things to them in ways they understood. The registered manager ensured people could use technology to speak with relatives that lived far away, including in other countries. The menu for each day was displayed but staff were aware some people could not retain this information well, so at mealtimes staff spoke to people again about their choices and the chef told us they ensured there was always enough food so that anyone could have the choice they wanted. There were notice boards in use at the home with information for staff and relatives.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The provider told us they spoke to people regularly and knew them well, so making small adjustments to care plans happened frequently. People and their relatives felt very involved in the home and everyone we spoke to was positive about the management and how any suggestions were responded to. A relative told us, “The manager always says to tell her if we want anything, and she sorts it.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and their relatives told us care was available when people needed it. The registered manager ensured people were referred to appropriate healthcare professionals as necessary. We saw care plans with references to information from the SALT team for example.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Care was tailored to people’s needs, and everyone was treated in the way best suited for them. Care plans contained clear information on people’s abilities. For example, they explained which things a person living with dementia could understand, which things they struggled to understand and ways to support that understanding. Where a person needed food pureed for a softer diet this was documented, and at mealtimes people were not hurried by staff so they had time to eat their meals at their own pace.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People at the home had discussed their wishes around treatment and end of life care. People did not always want to talk about this and where that was the case, it was noted in the care plan to enable staff to consider raising the subject again in the future. Where people had wishes such as ‘Do not resuscitate’ or had a Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment, (ReSPECT) in place this was documented. A ReSPECT form is a document that outlines a person's preferences for their clinical care in emergency situations where they are unable to make decisions or express their wishes.