Thornfield Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service since October 2024. This key question has been rated good.This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 79 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The provider had acquired the service in October 2024. They had put in place several changes. Staff were very supportive of the new changes and welcomed how organised the home was in comparison to the year before. The leadership team were working hard to address any shortfalls within the service. There was a clear vision for the service and the future. An extensive improvement plan was in place to make the necessary changes to improve the service for people. The culture of the home was open and inclusive; the team were now working together in a cohesive way. There was a shared common goal, and this was to ensure people received the best quality care.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. The provider was new to the service and had in place an interim manager. Staff told us the new manager was very understanding and approachable. The leadership team were very involved in the service and had complete oversight. The leadership team were including all staff in decisions about the service and future plans. It was evident from the managerial team that the service was starting to improve but there was still some work to be done. The leadership team and interim manager had the experience and skills to lead the service effectively.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. All staff without exception told us they understood the need to speak up if there were concerns or abuse in the service. Staff told us they would if needed blow the whistle for example, if there were signs of abuse. All staff were able to explain clearly this process.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The staff we spoke with told us they liked the new managers and the approach they were taking. Staff told us they had more support and could progress and build on their skills with the new provider.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. The provider had excellent governance systems in place to check the quality of care. There was a lot of emphasis on following up on actions and recording outcomes. The leadership team had clear oversight of the service and as a result were able to put in place additional checks to ensure the highest quality of care was being delivered. The provider shared with us multiple examples of how they had made improvements following the quality checks. For example, they had increased staffing levels because of feedback from staff and people. They put together a service improvement plan which had several priorities to improve the home for people for example, encouraging people to eat in the dining room which would support social inclusion. We observed this on the day of our visit; everyone came to the dining room to eat their meals. In other areas of the home there was a plan to refurbish bedrooms and communal areas. The audits and checks were driving improvements and the leadership team were fully invested in making the home the best it could be so people could live a full life.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The provider worked in partnership with the local authority and health care professionals. This approach meant people had full access to health care provision. In addition, they had established links with the local community. This meant people would have greater access to a range of activities in line with their interests and preferences.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. The provider had in place an extensive improvement plan for the service. All areas were covered within the plan. Actions and outcomes were recorded. There was a clear emphasis on making the service better for people.