Thornfield Care Home

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. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service since October 2024. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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. Records reviewed showed that there were clear actions following a complaint or audit. Staff told us they learned from mistakes and any issues were discussed at handovers and team meetings. For example, following an audit of care plans it was noted that staff had failed to update them in a timely manner. This was acted upon and staff were reminded to ensure they updated care plans as soon as the changes was identified.

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. Records showed that people’s care needs were a priority. The provider worked well with health care professionals; information was shared with relevant parties. This meant people could be confident that the right information was provided to the right people when required.

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. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse. Staff told us they would report any concerns to the management team and this would be addressed. Staff told us about the whistle blowing procedures. The provider had a clear safeguarding process in place.

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. Care plans and risk plans were in enough detail for staff to follow and mitigate risks of harm. For example, the provider had falls risk assessment in place for people. Measures such as sensor mats were in place to ensure people had assistance when needed.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The new provider had begun to make changes to the home including a plan of refurbishment and address any safety concerns. For example, some fire doors had been reported as faulty, this had been addressed. In some areas of the home, it was clear that some remedial work needed to be done. However, we did not find any issues of safety in the environment. An extensive service improvement plan was developed, and work was underway to address the outdated rooms. A maintenance process was in place to ensure the home was safe. Despite the issues raised at the inspection we did not find that people would be at risk of coming to harm.

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 told us they had good support from the management team. Records showed staff had 1:1 meetings, team meetings and training to do their jobs effectively. We observed that there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. However, some relatives told us they had observed some occasions when not enough staff were on duty and people were left waiting for support. We spoke to the provider about this, and they explained that this may have been a historical issue existing prior to the new provider coming on board. Records reviewed showed the provider had in place a tool to calculate how many staff were needed based on people’s needs. Staff told us people’s needs were met as there was enough staff on duty each day.

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, and maintenance issues were being addressed. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) to mitigated risks of spreading infections. For example, use of aprons and gloves. However, there was a strong malodour in a part of the home, which was at times overpowering. We spoke to the provider about this, and they had picked this up when doing health and safety checks. It was thought to be due to flooring and pipes. It was being investigated by the provider at the time of our visit.

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. We observed people taking medicine when required, this was administered by staff who were trained and followed the procedure. When staff supported people with their medicines, they were respectful and patient. Records reviewed showed medicines were administered in line with the medicine procedure. Records were up to date and accurate. Changes to people’s medicine were recorded and staff were updated through the communication channels.