The Thatched House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. At the previous inspection the provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to assessing the risk of, and preventing, detecting and controlling the spread of infections. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. The provider had previously failed to ensure new staff were of good character and failed to ensure recruitment procedures were operated effectively. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. The provider had previously failed to identify, assess and manage risks to people. 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 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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The provider and registered manager ensured the home was safe. The provider told us they encouraged staff to tell them if they saw anything unsafe or unclean that needed addressing and they would action the changes immediately. Relatives told us staff were quick to act if they raised concerns and they felt their relatives were safe at the home because of this.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The registered manager ensured other healthcare professionals had access to the home as required. Relatives told us staff knew people well and recorded care needs electronically so they could be easily shared with other professionals if needed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Safeguarding concerns were raised with the local authority by the manager when required. People told us they felt safe and well cared for and relatives told us they knew who to speak to if they had a concern. Many staff at the home were recruited from overseas, they were confident to report concerns to the registered manager if necessary and told us so, a staff member said, “I don’t think anything needs to change. People are safe.” The provider told us staff had training in the specific laws around safeguarding in Britain.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People and their families were involved in the care plans and the management of risk. Staff were well trained to ensure they understood how to provide safe care. A person’s relative told us, “They will ask questions about how she likes care or what she was like at home in the past.” Relatives told us staff came to visit people in their homes before they came to live at The Thatched House to ensure they understood their care needs and any risks associated with that.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider had carried out work at the home to replace older worn carpets and replace them with non-slip laminate. Work had also been carried out to make the garden more accessible for people and there were picture signs to remind people of the locations of bathrooms and the dining room. People who lived at the home told us they thought the home was well maintained. A relative said, “We have no complaints.”

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff were recruited safely. The registered manager ensured safe recruitment processes and appropriate storage of documentation. Staff had background checks and were interviewed using suitable questions. There were enough staff at the home to support people safely. We did not see anyone wait when they needed assistance and both relatives and staff felt there were enough staff for safety. One staff member said it could be busy in the mornings, but it was never unsafe. They said, “It’s safe, people are safe but one more carer in the morning would be good.” A relative told us, “The staff are very keen and hardworking.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The home was clean, staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and knew when and how to use it. Clinical waste was disposed of safely. A relative told us they had once needed to speak to the registered manager when they felt their relative’s hair was not clean, they said this was immediately addressed and had not been an issue again. The registered manager explained they carried out ‘walk arounds’ daily to check the home was clean, and had recently replaced worn or stained linen. They told us staff were encouraged to report items which needed replacement.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were stored and administered safely. The home used clear guidance and policies for staff, medicines administration sheets (MAR) were signed after medicines were given. Medicines were not left with people to take later. Staff used blister packs to reduce the risk of errors and missed tablets. Some MAR charts had incorrect room numbers on them, however they also had people’s correct names and photographs and staff knew people well. When the provider was told about the erroneous room numbers, they said all charts would be reviewed and corrected , and they started this during the inspection.