CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Thameside
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some environmental and equipment safety checks had not been completed since April 2023. Inspectors also found problems with the storage of some creams and unpleasant odours in parts of the home.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and understood people's needs. People received appropriate support with eating, drinking and healthcare, although inspectors noted that some lunch portions were small.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be warm, friendly and respectful. People and families were involved in decisions, and staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and person-centred, and communication needs were recorded. Families raised concerns about limited trips out and the variety of activities.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had quality monitoring systems, but they did not identify problems found by inspectors. Managers were described as approachable and communication with families was generally good.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care, but safety checks and quality monitoring were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 July 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, families, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care and medicine records, staff recruitment files, accident records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported by trained staff, involved in decisions, treated with kindness and dignity, and given personalised care. Healthcare referrals and support with food, drink and medicines were generally handled well.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, giving an overall rating of Requires Improvement. Some checks on equipment and the building had not been completed, and the quality systems had not identified these problems. The provider was asked for an action plan and CQC said it would monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and respectfully. Families also said staff protected people's dignity and supported their independence.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff to be warm, friendly and respectful.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and backgrounds. Families were involved in writing and reviewing them.
“People's care plans were detailed, person centred and considered people's diverse needs.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff had suitable training and experience. Families said staff understood the equipment and support their relatives needed.
“The staff are very well trained. They use all sorts of skills to persuade [relative] to have a shower.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff recognised when people needed outside healthcare support and followed professional advice. Healthcare professionals said referrals were timely and clear.
“They always make referrals well, they make it clear what they want and they always seem to follow guidance well after my visits.” from the report
Missed safety checks
seriousChecks on alarms, slings, wheelchairs, emergency lighting and door releases had not been completed as required. There were also no records of some shower-head checks.
“The provider did not have robust checks in place to ensure the safety of the premises and equipment within it.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's audits did not identify safety and environmental problems found during the inspection. This included some medicines storage issues.
“Systems in place to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service were not robust.” from the report
- 01Which equipment and building safety checks were missed, and can you show us that they are now being completed on schedule?
- 02How are staffing levels reviewed in the area where staff said they had less time to support people?
- 03What activities and trips outside the home are currently available, and how are they matched to each person's interests?
- 04How do you check that creams and other medicines are stored correctly and that staff follow the medicines protocol?
- 05What action plan was sent to CQC, and what evidence is available that the improvements have been sustained?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, with records, observations and feedback from people, families, staff and healthcare professionals reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 August 2023 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, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
The inspection took place on 26 August 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic, focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks safely. They were also assured that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home employed three Welfare Assistants to help people keep in touch with family and friends using technology. It had also prepared an isolation area, with changing areas and bathrooms for staff to use.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Keeping people in touch
Three Welfare Assistants supported people to contact friends and family using tablet computers during COVID-19 restrictions.
“The provider had employed three Welfare Assistants who supported people during the COVID-19 restrictions to contact friends and families using technology, such as tablet computers.” from the report
Preparation for infection control
The home had prepared an isolation area and provided dedicated changing areas and bathrooms for staff to use with their uniforms and PPE.
“The provider had created an isolation area in preparation for a second wave of COVID-19.” from the report
Infection prevention measures
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective arrangements covering PPE, testing, hygiene, visitors and managing possible outbreaks.
“We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 26 August 2020?
- 02How do you currently support residents to keep in touch with family and friends?
- 03How would you manage an infection outbreak or need for people to isolate?
- 04What are your current arrangements for visitors, testing and the use of PPE?
- 05Can you provide information about the areas of care that were not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not give ratings for the other areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 September 2020 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 Thameside
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.