Thornton House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People received personalised support that reflected their routines and what mattered most to them. Care plans were individualised and recorded people’s preferred ways of communicating, their interests, emotional wellbeing and physical health needs. Staff used this information, alongside their strong knowledge and experience of each person, to tailor support in ways that helped people feel valued and understood.

People were treated with dignity, without discrimination, and in ways that promoted their individuality. Comments from people included, “Lovely staff”, “Staff are very good and they are the same staff” and “It’s the best home I have been in.” A member of staff confirmed, “The residents are well taken care of and have everything they need.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. One person told us, “I know the staff and they know me.” A relative told us, “Staff know Dad well and bend over backwards for him.”

However, we could not always be fully assured people’s preferences were met and their individuality also considered.

People were encouraged to participate in communal activities within the lounge and dining room which they enjoyed. However, people also fed back there was not enough going on and they wanted to get out and about more. Comments from people included, “Not much to do here, I spend a lot of my time sat in this chair” and “Could be more going on, yes, I want to be taken out.” We fed this back to the manager who confirmed an activity co-ordinator was in the process of being recruited, to facilitate both inhouse and external activities.

We observed some people involved in baking fairy cakes on the day of our inspection which people told us they enjoyed.

Staff supported people to maintain their relationships with family and friends. Visitors to the home were encouraged and made to feel welcome. We saw visitors at the home on the day of inspection and how this had a positive impact on people’s well-being.

The provider also promoted visits from children from the local primary school which people told us they valued and enjoyed.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff supported people in a way that upheld people’s autonomy, including choice over who supported them. People’s care and support placed emphasis on independence, dignity and active involvement in decision‑making. One person told us, “I can choose to have a shower or bath, I have choice.” People had a say over their environment, one person commented, “My room is lovely.”

Throughout the inspection the atmosphere in the home was calm and caring because staff were person centred focused and knew people well.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff had built up close bonds and relationships with the people they supported. People received timely and consistent care from familiar staff who understood their needs. During the inspection, we observed staff were visible and available to respond to people whenever the need arose. Where people required support, this was delivered in a discreet and unhurried way.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt valued listened to, well supported and respected in their roles. There was a culture of openness and collaboration. Staff described leaders as approachable, supportive and committed to delivering high quality care. Comments from staff included, “I like the home and the manager” and “The manager is approachable.”