CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Thatcham Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs safely. They also found the home was clean and equipment was maintained.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable skills and training, and people received care based on their needs and preferences. Inspectors recommended improved training about oral hygiene and clearer display of food allergens.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with compassion, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's independence and involved people and relatives in care planning and reviews.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had improved and contained detailed information about people's needs, preferences and health conditions. People were offered a broad range of activities and support to maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptional management, a positive workplace culture and strong systems for checking and improving care. The home used innovative activities and worked closely with community organisations.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding leadership and two recommendations about staff training and food allergen information.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 20 November 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, received suitable care and medicines support, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
Well-led was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found strong leadership, an open workplace culture, regular checks and a clear focus on improvement. The home also had active links with the local community and offered a wide range of activities.
Inspectors recommended better staff training about oral hygiene and clearer information about food allergens. These were recommendations, not recorded breaches of regulations.
Strong leadership
Inspectors found the home exceptionally well-managed, with a positive culture and a clear focus on improving people's lives.
“The service was exceptionally well-managed. There was a very positive workplace culture, which ensured the care provided was to excellent standards.” from the report
Safe care
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, accidents and infection control were managed through checks and follow-up action.
“People were protected from abuse, neglect and discrimination.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported independence and adapted care to each person's preferences.
“People were actively involved in their care planning and reviews.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were offered activities inside and outside the home, including trips, creative activities and contact with community groups and children.
“The service promoted social inclusion in the provision of everyday support and care and followed best practice guidance to ensure people were connected with their local community, friends and family.” from the report
Food allergen information
needs fixingThe kitchen held a list of people's allergies, but menus on dining tables did not show allergens in the food. Inspectors recommended reviewing the information provided.
“We recommend the provider reviews best practice guidance for displaying food allergens.” from the report
Oral hygiene training
needs fixingPeople had oral care plans and access to dental care, but staff did not have targeted induction, training or educational materials about oral hygiene.
“We recommend the provider reviews best practice guidance for oral hygiene in care home settings.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorInspectors found most required pre-employment checks, but asked for additional confirmation. The provider then developed a personnel file audit tool to check this more robustly.
“Most of the required pre-employment checks were in place.” from the report
- 01How do you now train staff to provide oral hygiene, and how is this training checked?
- 02How are food allergens shown on current menus and explained to residents and families?
- 03What recruitment checks are completed before a new staff member starts?
- 04How do you keep care plans updated when a resident's needs or preferences change?
- 05Which activities are available for residents who do not leave their bedroom or the building?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 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, June 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found care records were not always up to date and rated the service Requires Improvement for responsiveness.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 27 and 28 April 2017. It was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, visitors and staff. They also observed care and activities and checked care plans, staff records, medicines records and audits.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring support, and for being well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, kind care and positive leadership. People were supported with food, health care, activities and their rights to make choices.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for responsive care. Some care records were not updated when people's needs changed. Inspectors also heard mixed views from relatives about personal care and whether concerns had been acted on. The home had improved since the previous inspection and had met the earlier requirement about fire safety, but further work was still needed on recording and communication.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated warmly and with respect. Staff spent time talking with people, supported their choices and protected their privacy.
“People were treated with kindness and staff demonstrated a caring attitude toward people and their families.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home offered a wide range of group and one-to-one activities. People particularly enjoyed singing, outings, visits and the activity areas.
“A full and varied activity programme was available for people and there were many positive comments made with regard to activities.” from the report
Improved fire safety
The earlier fire safety shortfall had been addressed. Staff had updated training, took part in drills and had emergency evacuation information for each person.
“At this inspection we found there had been improvements and the provider was meeting the requirements of the regulation.” from the report
Positive leadership
Staff and relatives spoke positively about the manager. Inspectors found clear plans for improvement and regular checks on the quality of care.
“We found the culture in the service to be open.” from the report
Care records not always current
needs fixingSome records did not reflect people's changing needs. Inspectors found missing entries about repositioning and confusion among staff about what support was required.
“records were not always updated or detailed enough to reflect current information which may impact on people receiving appropriate care to meet their needs.” from the report
Concerns about personal care
needs fixingOne relative said their family member had received very few baths or showers. Records did not clearly show what personal care had been provided, and some relatives remained worried that basic needs were not always met.
“The relative also told us that they visited daily as they were not confident that their relative's basic needs were always being met, such as washing, changing bed linen and assistance with nutrition.” from the report
Busy mealtimes
minorOn one floor, staff were supporting many people at once and there was little interaction during lunch. The manager acted promptly by introducing two sittings.
“During this time a person became distressed and required the assistance of two staff.” from the report
- 01How do you check that each person's care plan and daily records are updated when their needs change?
- 02How do you make sure all staff know about new repositioning, skin care or other health instructions?
- 03How do you record baths, showers, changing bed linen and help with eating and drinking?
- 04How are relatives' concerns about personal care, dignity or nutrition followed up and reviewed?
- 05What changes have been made to mealtimes since inspectors found one floor was very busy?
This was a comprehensive inspection of the whole service, including follow-up of the previous Regulation 12 requirement notice; the inspection visit was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 June 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 Thatcham Court Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
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
42 live-in carers within about an hour of West Berkshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 36 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“Titus has compassion, patience, a great sense of humour and a very professional attitude.”
“Barbara treated my mother-in-law with enormous love and compassion and provided an environment where she could feel safe and seen”
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.