Thirlestaine Park Care Home

Updated 3 September 2021

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. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. This was a targeted inspection to look at the provider’s arrangements to keep people safe and to review the provider’s procedures for falls prevention and falls management.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by two inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. In this case a person with experience of older people and people who live with dementia.

Service and service type

Thirlestaine Park Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service is required to have a manager registered with CQC. At the time of the inspection this was not the case although a new home manager had been identified and was due to start in September 2021. It is planned that this manager will apply to CQC to be registered. This means they, and the provider, will be legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was announced.

We gave a short period of notice for the inspection because we needed to be sure that the current person responsible for managing the service would be present to support the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we held about the service since the last inspection. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with nine people who used the service and three relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 11 members of staff which included the nominated individual, a regional director (currently responsible for managing the service), an agency nurse and an agency care assistant, head of care, a team leader, a bank care assistant, head chef, an activities co-ordinator and two housekeepers. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider.

We reviewed a range of records. This included five people’s care records and seven people’s medication records. We looked at three staff files in relation to recruitment. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including a selection of policies and procedures, were also reviewed.

After the inspection

We received feedback from a healthcare professional who regularly visited the service and spoke with a further two relatives by telephone to gain their views of the care provided. We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate the evidence gathered on call bell response.

Updated 3 September 2021

Thirlestaine Park Care Home is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care home can accommodate 63 people in one adapted building spread over three floors. Nursing care was provided on the second floor and people living with dementia lived on the first floor. People requiring help with their personal care lived on the ground floor. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people living at the home. People had individual bedrooms with en-suite facilities and also had access to a bathroom with an assisted bath. Spacious communal areas were provided on each of the three floors which included lounges and dining areas. In addition people had access to smaller private lounges, a gym, an activities room and a reception room where they and their visitors could have coffee. Grounds around the home were accessible. Raised flower beds and patio areas were provided. On the first and second floors there were enclosed balconies for people to sit outside.

This inspection took place on 13 and 14 December 2017. At the last comprehensive inspection in October 2015 the service was rated as Good overall.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

People’s care and support was individualised reflecting their backgrounds, lifestyles and aspirations. Staff knew people well, treating them with kindness and respect. They understood how to support people who were anxious or upset, helping them to manage their emotions. People had positive relationships with staff, sharing lighter moments and laughing with them. People were encouraged to be independent and staff knew what they could and could not do for themselves. People were offered choices about their day to day lives. 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. Deprivation of liberty safeguards were in place where people were restricted of their liberty.

People’s health and wellbeing was promoted. They had access to a range of health care professionals. When people’s needs changed they received the appropriate health and support to enable them to stay as well and safe as possible. People were supported to have a healthy and nutritious diet which reflected their individual dietary needs. People’s interests were considered when providing a range of activities both inside and outside of the home. People enjoyed art and flower arranging classes, using the gym, gentle exercise, music and individual clubs. A group of people had visited a local airport and had a helicopter ride. People had also been entertained by a choir and local celebrity. Good use was made of technology to make information accessible to people and to ensure they received safe care.

People were supported by staff who had been through a recruitment process which verified their competency and aptitude for the roles they were to perform. Staff had access to training to equip them with the skills to support people. They were supported to develop in their roles with individual meetings, annual appraisals and staff meetings. Staff understood how to keep people safe and were confident about raising concerns about people’s safety and wellbeing.

People’s views were sought as part of the quality assurance process to drive through improvements. A range of quality assurance audits were completed by staff, the registered manager and the provider to monitor and evaluate the quality of service provided. Audits evidenced actions had been identified resulting in improvements to such areas as staff training and supervision, staff levels and the environment.

The registered manager was open and accessible. Complaints were investigated and responded to with action being taken in response to any lessons learnt. The registered manager wished to drive through improvements to provide the best possible service to people and to value the contribution of staff.