Thornton House Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission into the service. Any expected outcomes were identified, and care and support were regularly reviewed to help ensure it was relevant to people’s current needs.

We could not always be assured the provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

For one person who was on a modified diet, daily care records did not always accurately record what the person had consumed and to what consistency they had consumed it at. This is important as the person had a diet in accordance with the IDDSI (International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative - a framework used to classify food textures and drink thicknesses and is aimed at improving safety for people with swallowing difficulties).

In the event of a choking incident, there would not be a reliable record the person had received their food as prescribed by the dietician.

For another person who was living with diabetes, information about what they had consumed was not always recorded sufficiently. For example, daily notes regarding the person’s intake stated, ‘had lunch’, ‘had pudding’, ‘had snack’. This is important as an appropriate diet can help maintain a healthy blood sugar and can prevent unhealthy spikes or dops in blood sugar levels.

We also observed for another person, they had not seen a dentist for many years, yet there was no evidence from the care plan that attempts had been made to secure a dental appointment for that person.

People’s feedback about the quality of the food and drink on offer was mixed. Comments from people included, “Food is average, not much choice, but enough to drink”, “Food is OK here,” and “Food is lovely.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The provider worked collaboratively across services to better understand and meet people’s needs. The provider used an electronic care recording system, so information could be shared quickly and easily with other external health care professionals.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

The provider made appropriate and timely referrals to other relevant professionals to help people achieve better outcomes regarding their health and well-being. We saw examples of referrals being made to SALT (Speech and Language Therapy) team where the provider had recognised people requiring modifications to their diet. The provider also worked in partnership with district nurses to manage people’s long-term conditions.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

As some people’s risks had not been assessed properly, and people’s daily records had not always been maintained, we could not be fully assured people’s care was monitored as effectively as it could be. People’s daily records were not always accurate and did not always reflect the care people ought to have received in accordance with their care plan.

For one person who was at risk of pressure injury, their care plan recorded they required 2 hourly positional changes in the night. However, when we checked the person’s daily records, we observed gaps of 12 hours between positional changes being recorded.

This meant opportunities may have been missed to identify areas where improvements or changes to people’s care and treatment could be made to help better their outcomes.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff empowered people to make decisions about their care, so their human and legal rights were upheld. People told us their rights were respected. During our inspection, we observed staff seek permission from people prior to delivering care and support.

The provider assessed whether people had capacity to make decisions and involved relevant professions when needed. Where people did not have capacity, staff upheld their rights in the least restrictive way possible and referred people for professional assessment at the earliest opportunity.