CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Thames House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Thames House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with strong management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 and 22 August 2019. One inspector spoke with people using the home and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, training information and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, received appropriate health and nutritional support, and were treated with dignity and respect.
People had personalised care plans, access to activities and community outings, and support to make choices. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and managers used audits, meetings and feedback to improve the service.
Safe medicines systems
Inspectors found medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff training, competency checks and regular audits supported this.
“The administration of medicines remained safe. We checked the systems for ordering, storing, administering and disposing of medicines.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, interests and equality needs. Staff supported people to make everyday choices and respected their privacy.
“We saw in the plans of care that there were good details about a person's past life, their likes and dislikes, interests and hobbies.” from the report
Activities and community links
People helped choose activities, including shopping, horse riding, hydrotherapy, concerts and holidays. Activities could be individual or in groups.
“Activities could be taken as a group or be individual to each person.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke positively about staff, and inspectors observed good relationships. Staff respected people's dignity by knocking before entering bedrooms.
“We observed staff during the inspection. Staff had a good rapport with people who used the service, were kind and caring.” from the report
Improved leadership
The management rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The registered manager used audits, meetings and feedback to support improvements.
“At this inspection this key question improved to good.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and support my relative's specific needs before admission?
- 02What activities and community outings could my relative take part in, and how would their choices be recorded?
- 03How would you support my relative's communication needs, including the use of spectacles, hearing aids or other communication aids?
- 04How are medicines checked, and how would you respond if my relative needed an as-required medicine?
- 05What life-skills and independence support is currently available while the lifestyle and activities coordinator role is being recruited?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the Well-led rating improving from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 September 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Thames House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the lack of a registered manager meant well-led was Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 20 and 21 December 2016. Inspectors spoke with people using the service, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, suitable food, good care planning and kind interactions. People had choices, activities and support to maintain relationships.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because there was no registered manager. This was a CQC rating limitation. Inspectors also found that management audits, policies and other systems were in place. The overall rating was Good.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough trained and experienced staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were described as robust.
“There were sufficient numbers of well trained and experienced staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines handled safely
Medicines records were accurate, with no unexplained gaps or omissions. Staff training, competency checks and audits were in place.
“We looked at eight medicines administration records (MARs) and found they had been completed accurately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were helpful and kind. Inspectors saw good rapport, attention to people's needs and respectful interactions.
“We observed staff during the inspection and how they interacted with people who used the service.” from the report
Individual care planning
Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines, communication needs and equipment. They were reviewed regularly.
“Plans of care were personalised to each person and recorded their likes and dislikes, choices, preferred routines, activities and hobbies.” from the report
Food and health support
People had choices of meals and drinks, with specialist equipment and professional advice where needed. Staff arranged health appointments promptly.
“There was a choice at each meal and other foods available at any mealtime which included sandwiches, jacket potatoes with fillings and or soup.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. This automatically limited the well-led rating to Requires Improvement, although a new manager was due to start.
“The service did not have a registered manager.” from the report
Privacy when doors were left open
minorPeople said staff did not always close bedroom doors after entering or during care. Inspectors asked management to address this.
“Staff don't always remember to close the door behind them but always remember to knock” from the report
Mixed views about activities
minorThe home offered many activities, but some people felt there was not enough to do or that activities were poor. This is worth discussing for the relative's interests and abilities.
“I play chess, not really much to do” from the report
- 01Is there now a registered manager, and how are they overseeing the quality of care?
- 02How many permanent staff are now working, and how often is agency staff used?
- 03How do you check that bedroom and bathroom doors are closed to protect people's privacy?
- 04How are activities matched to each person's interests, and how do you respond when people say there is not enough to do?
- 05How are care plans and medicines records checked when people's needs or medicines change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and checks of selected records. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 January 2017 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 Thames House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Rochdale
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 92 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.