Thornhill Nursing 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 inadequate. 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.

The service was no longer in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 65 (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.

Staff were caring, always treating people with kindness and respect, maintaining their privacy and dignity. The manager and staff had developed positive relationships with people and relatives. This created a welcoming and homely atmosphere, which people valued. Feedback included, “The staff are all nice. They treat me with dignity and respect because they are very nice to me,” “The staff are the kindest of people. Every single one of the staff are lovely” and “The staff are professional; they know their jobs and are caring.”

Visiting professionals were welcomed into the service.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Most people’s wishes and preferences were included in their care plans. Staff knew people’s preferences and considered this when providing support. People and relatives felt individuality was respected by staff. Feedback included, “Staff are caring and treat [Name] as an individual, you can see that in how very well they communicate with her,” “The staff who have been here a while know [Name] by heart. They are comfortable with her, and all know her as an individual” and “They treat people well. They treat [Name] as an individual. For example, they got [Name] a big chair so they can get to the living room to be with the others.”

The provider promoted people’s independence and people knew their rights. They had some choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. However, improvements were needed to ensure meaningful activities were consistently available to all people.

People and relatives gave mixed feedback regarding the availability of meaningful activities at the service. Comments included, “We do activities like painting, quizzes and children come in, I like that. But they take me out very infrequently,” “I am not sure there are any activities,” “There are not many activities” and “There is an activities board and it’s more or less the same activities every week. There are no activities at weekends. They do baking, the church lady comes in, and they take them out in the summer.”

We observed some activities taking place, at times, during the assessment. However, records showed some people engaged in more activity than others and people were not regularly accessing outdoor space and fresh air. The provider was taking steps to address this.

People were supported to be independent. Feedback included, “They help me be as independent as possible,” “They encourage me to do as much as I can” and “I am trying to keep as much independence as I can, and they respect that.”

The provider mostly listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff mostly responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. However, improvements were needed with regards to managing behaviour that challenges. For example, 1 person was observed to be distressed and shouting that they were not being listened to. They were not effectively responded to. In addition, the person’s care records did not accurately reflect what had taken place and their behaviour charts were not being completed. This meant opportunities to offer more effective responses and to analyse triggers were being missed.

We observed staff responding to people when they required support without delay. Call bells were responded to within a reasonable time frame and there was a constant staff presence.

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

Staff morale had improved since the last assessment. They spoke positively about their role and were open and willing to engage with the inspection team. Staff told us about improvements made in relation to the support they received, and they consistently gave positive feedback. Comments included, “We are supported a lot” and “The provider and manager are flexible to help us if we need.” There was an employee recognition scheme in place to celebrate staff who had gone the extra mile.

The provider had plans in place to address gaps in formal avenues of support. For example, supervision, to further enhance staff wellbeing.