Thornfield House

Updated 19 June 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type: Thornfield House is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to people with learning disabilities. The new manager was registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 June 2019, this was after we visited the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: The inspection was unannounced on the first day.

What we did:

Before our inspection, we looked at all the information we held about the service. We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We viewed information we had received about the service, for example, from the local authority safeguarding and commissioning teams, and notifications from the provider.

During the inspection we spoke with three support workers, the manager, the deputy manager, two regional managers and a peripatetic manager. We spoke with one person who lived at the home and two relatives. We observed staff supporting people in the communal areas and looked around the home. We reviewed three people's care records, three staff files and other records relating to the management of the home.

Updated 19 June 2019

About the service: Thornfield House specialises in providing care and support to people with learning disabilities. The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to seven people and seven people were living there when we inspected. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when they were coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service:

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support in the following ways. There was a strong focus on promoting choice, control and independence. People’s support focused on taking positive risks to ensure they had as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become independent.

People received good care and support which met their individual needs.

People and relatives praised the home and the way in which care was provided.

People were supported in a safe environment. Risks to people's health and safety were assessed and managed. The service learnt lessons and improved the safety of the service following incidents.

There were enough staff deployed to ensure people received their required care and support. Staff were kind and caring and treated people well. Staff knew people well and had developed good, caring relationships with them.

Staff had received training to enable them to care for 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.

Medicines were managed safely, and people’s health needs were met.

The service was well managed. The provider had robust systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People were given opportunities to have a say in how the service was provided.

Rating at last inspection: Good. (Report published November 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the last rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit in line with our re-inspection programme. It any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk