You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Thornhill. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 February 2018

This inspection took place on 8 January 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day; we needed to be sure that someone would be in

Thornhill is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service could accommodate up to seven people. At the time of the inspection six people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

We inspected the service in November 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

Relatives felt the service was safe. Policies and procedures were in place to keep people safe such as safeguarding, accident and incident policies. Staff had received training in safeguarding and knew how to report concerns.

Staff recruitment procedures were robust and included Disclosure and Barring Service checks and references. Staffing levels were appropriate to the needs of the people using the service.

Risk assessments were detailed, person-centred, and gave staff clear guidance about how to help keep people safe. People had personal emergency evacuation plans in place in case of an emergency.

Staff were trained in a range of subjects such as infection control, health and safety and fire safety. Staff had also received training to support them to meet the needs of people who used the service, such as autism.

Staff received regular supervisions and an annual appraisal which covered their personal development. Staff felt they were well supported by the registered manager and assistant manager.

People had access to a range of healthcare, such as GPs, opticians and dentistry. Nutritional needs were acknowledged and people enjoyed a healthy varied diet.

The premises were well suited to people’s needs, with ample individual living space. Communal areas were available for people to spend time together. Bathrooms were designed to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were encouraged to make choices in everyday decisions wherever possible. Staff provided support and care in a dignified manner, ensuring privacy when necessary.

Person-centred care plans were in place and contained good levels of detailed information. Care plans contained people’s likes, dislikes and preferences. Regular reviews took place to ensure staff had up to date information.

People enjoyed a range of activities both inside and outside the home. The service had positive links with the community with people accessing local community centres, discos and shops.

The provider had a complaints process in place which was accessible to people in a pictorial format.

The provider had a quality assurance process to monitor the quality of the service. Staff were extremely positive about the registered manager and assistant manager. We found people who used the service, family members and staff attended

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 February 2018

The service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 February 2018

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 February 2018

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 February 2018

The service remains Good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 8 February 2018

The service remains Good.