CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 14 Thornhill
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found issues with some over-the-counter medicines, a medicines record discrepancy, food hygiene, hazardous household substances and window restrictors. The manager took action during the inspection, although some incident records were still not fully signed as completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans, staff training was up to date, and people were supported with healthy food and access to healthcare. DoLS applications and mental capacity assessments were appropriately recorded.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were seen to provide care with kindness. Inspectors found that staff understood people's individual needs, respected privacy and dignity, and supported contact with families.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, needs and goals. People had a wide range of activities, community opportunities and holidays, and complaints had been investigated appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Relatives, healthcare professionals and staff described the home as well managed and supportive. Regular meetings, quality audits and plans for improvement were in place.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but Safe required improvement because of medicines and premises safety issues.
The inspection included an unannounced visit on 24 October 2018, an announced visit on 29 October, and calls to relatives on 6 November. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, managers and care staff. They observed care, checked records and looked around the building.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because inspectors found problems with some medicines records, food hygiene, hazardous substances and window safety. The manager took action during the inspection to address these issues.
Inspectors found that people were treated kindly and supported by staff who knew their needs well. Care plans were detailed, people were supported to make choices and take part in activities, and relatives said the home was well managed. The overall rating stayed Good compared with the previous inspection.
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Staff treated people with care and kindness. Relatives said staff knew people's needs well and understood autism.
“Staff were seen to treat people with great care and kindness and relatives we spoke with confirmed this also.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained detailed information about people's preferences, feelings, communication and support needs. People were also helped to work towards personal goals and greater independence.
“Care plans contained lots of detailed information about how staff should care for that person, including their likes and dislikes, what made them happy or sad and what kind of activities they enjoyed and chose to do.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to take part in education, work, social activities, community trips and holidays. Activities were linked to social and life skills.
“Activities played a key part in the lives of people who lived at the service, and the service placed great emphasis upon ensuring that activities were meaningful and provided positive experiences for people” from the report
Good management
Relatives and staff described the home as well managed. The provider used regular meetings and monthly and quarterly audits to monitor the service.
“Monthly quality audits were carried out by the registered manager. These audits were further supplemented by quarterly audits which were carried out by the area manager.” from the report
Medicines checks
seriousSome opened over-the-counter remedies did not have opening dates, one was out of date, and one first aid item was also out of date. Inspectors also found a discrepancy between medicines held and records.
“Some homely over the counter remedies which had been purchased and opened, did not have a recorded opening date, and one item was also out of date.” from the report
Premises safety and food hygiene
seriousInspectors found poor food hygiene practices, unsafe storage of hazardous household substances and missing window restrictors. The manager said action had been taken by the end of the inspection.
“During a walk-around of the premises on the second day of inspection, we identified a number of issues that required improvement.” from the report
Incomplete incident records
needs fixingPositive proactive support records showed that incidents should be shared, reviewed and signed off. However, not all records showed that these steps had been completed.
“However, a review of the PPS log showed that although incidents had been logged, not all records had been fully signed as completed.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to record opening dates and expiry dates for over-the-counter medicines and first aid items?
- 02How was the medicines stock discrepancy investigated, and how do you now check that stock matches the records?
- 03What permanent changes were made to food hygiene, storage of hazardous substances and window restrictors?
- 04How do you make sure incidents are shared with staff and relatives where appropriate, reviewed by managers and fully signed off?
- 05What evidence can you show that the safety improvements identified during the inspection have been sustained?
This inspection covered all five CQC questions, included two visits and calls to relatives, and reviewed care plans, staff files, medicines, records and the building. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 14 Thornhill
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2013.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £950 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.