Thornhill Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider was no longer in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 68 (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 evidence that people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Improvements had been made in relation to some aspects of person-centred care. Some people’s care records were personalised and showed some involvement from people and relatives, however others required further improvement to reflect this. People and relatives gave mixed feedback regarding involvement in care planning. Comments included, “We were involved with the care plan at the beginning, and they keep talking about having a review,” “We haven’t been involved in the care plan” and “I was involved in her care plan at first and they do reviews. They talk to her and ask me how she is getting on.” In addition, people’s care records were not consistently updated in a timely manner or following incidents. However, staff demonstrated a person-centred approach to care delivery, ensuring they supported people in the way they preferred, and making conversation about topics that were of interest to the individual. People had their personal care needs met, and bedrooms were personalised.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Systems and processes in place effectively supported continuity of care and ensured people had access to health professionals when needed. Staff understood people’s needs and shared information appropriately with partners and health professionals. One professional told us, “They have been accommodating and understanding of [Name]’s needs. They have been able to pick up on things that are needed.”

Whilst the provider had made some improvements, they did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives were not always involved with or did not routinely have access to care plans. There was no adapted information available for 1 person who was registered blind and had impaired hearing. A printed activity timetable, which the person was unable to see had been left in their room.

Some improvements had been made in relation to providing information for people living with dementia. For example, show plates were used to support people living with dementia to make a choice at mealtimes. There were also examples of easy read format surveys and results available for people.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People were told what had changed as a result.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure complaints were appropriately logged and responded to. People and relatives told us they felt comfortable raising concerns and that these would be listened to and addressed. Comments included, “I tell staff if I have any problems and they always sort it out,” “I feel I could raise concerns if I needed to” and “I feel comfortable raising concerns.”

Processes were in place to obtain feedback from people. For example, via surveys. The results were then collated and used to make improvements. Some resident and relative meetings had taken place. Further embedding was required regarding these to ensure actions were consistently identified and addressed.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had appropriate equipment in place and were able to access areas of the service when they needed to. For example, 1 person had a specialist chair to enable them to sit in the lounge with other people. Staff understood people, and they worked to ensure they had fair and equal access to health services and professionals when required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had made improvements and developed a culture of equality, fairness and inclusion. People were treated equitably and without judgement. Staff cared for people in a way that met their individual needs, supporting positive experiences and outcomes. People and relatives were happy with the service and care provided. Feedback included, “I am happy with the care and support I receive, there are no improvements needed,” “Staff do a really good job with the support and care. It’s a nice place, there’s no shouting going on, the atmosphere is relaxed” and “This [home] is amazing. It’s everything they do for [Name].”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Nobody was receiving end of life care at the time of the assessment. However, staff had received training in end of life care and progress had been made in relation to a more person-centred approach to planning care. Some people had care plans in place reflecting their end of life wishes.