Thornhill Nursing 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 inadequate. 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 71 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care and wellbeing needs with them.

Pre-admission assessments were not always up to date or fully complete to inform thorough and detailed care planning. In addition, some people’s care records contained inaccuracies and required updating. For example, on the first day of assessment 1 person had several care plans and risk assessments which had been due for review for over a week. Action was taken to address this following feedback.

People’s communication needs were documented within care records. One relative told us about specialist equipment in place to support a person making a phone call. Some people and relatives had been involved in assessment processes, but this was not consistent for all. The provider had a plan in place to address this.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Records showed nationally recognised assessment tools were in place to assess people’s needs and risks. For example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). People’s preferences were known by staff, and this was reflected in the support provided. People’s nutritional needs were consistently met, this included people who had individual dietary needs and specialist diets. One relative told us, “[The staff] know all about [Name]’s specialist diet.” Food and fluid monitoring was effective, and action was taken where needed. For example, if people lost weight. Food and fluids were readily available, and people were given a choice. The mealtime experience was pleasant, and people appeared to enjoy it. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the food. Comments included, “The food is amazing” and “It is all nice.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff knew people and worked effectively together as a team to ensure their needs were met. Where agency staff were in place they worked regularly at the service and were familiar with people. Effective information sharing processes were in place. For example, handovers and daily flash meetings. Such processes combined with staff knowledge supported continuity of care. Referrals were made to health professionals when needed.

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.

People were supported to access health care professionals when needed. For example, the GP and district nurses. One relative told us, “[Name] has a hearing test next week, then the dentist soon after that.” People were also supported to attend external appointments, such as hospital appointments. Where health professionals were involved in people’s care this was appropriately documented in records to support care delivery.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Improvements had been made since the last assessment with regards to oversight and monitoring of people’s health. Effective systems and processes were in place to support health monitoring and ensure that necessary actions were taken when there were signs of deterioration. The manager and deputy manager maintained effective oversight of clinical care and had an active role in ensuring people’s health needs were met.

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

Improvements had been made at the service since the last assessment regarding consent to care and treatment. The provider was working within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). Mental capacity assessments were in place and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were appropriately managed. Throughout the assessment we observed staff consistently seeking people’s consent before providing support and giving people a choice.