Thorndene Residential Care 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (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 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. We observed staff interacting with people and found they were task focused. The chandelier in the dining room had six glass bowls, only two were lit with bulbs. It still had a Christmas decoration hanging from it. This showed a lack of consideration for people's home and environment. People were not involved in making choices about their care. There was a lack of choice available at lunch time.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. There is some evidence of activities that have taken place in the run up to Christmas but no evidence of on-going activities at the time of inspection. People told us they were bored and said there was nothing to occupy them. The service worked with external professionals to ensure people received support they required. However, documentation did not always show advice had been followed.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was not always available in formats that might aid people's understanding and choice, such as photographs and pictures. Information in the dining room was mainly regarding staff and more like a staff notice board which could be confusing for people living at the home. There was a sign on the front door saying there was a weekly arts and craft group in the conservatory, but people told us this was no longer available.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. We asked the provider for a record of complaints; however, this was not clear and did not show that the providers complaints procedure had been followed or satisfactory resolutions found.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Healthcare professionals were involved in peoples care and support. However, some staff were not aware of the current support people required or why care was provided in a particular way. This showed communication between the staff team was poor.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. One person was awaiting a specialist chair and in the meantime was supported in their bedroom. However, during this time the persons emotional needs were not always being met. This was causing the person distress.

People were not always 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. End of life care wishes were not always documented within care plans. Some people did not wish to discuss this stage of their life; however, people’s likes and dislikes had not been incorporated into documentation.