CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Thatched House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but found gaps in cleanliness, risk management, recruitment and oversight.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 16 August 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas and management records.
The home was not always clean, hygienic or well maintained. Inspectors found problems including soiled and stained bedding, dirty bathroom equipment, poor flooring, trip hazards and an overgrown garden. Infection control arrangements for visitors and waste were also not consistent.
Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care, safe medicines practice and positive relationships with people, relatives and health professionals. However, recruitment checks, staff training records, risk assessments and quality checks were not reliable. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Kind care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care and the kindness of staff.
“People told us they were happy at the home and relatives spoke highly of the care provided to people.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to care for people safely, and people said they did not have to wait long for help.
“There were enough staff to provide safe care and people were protected from risks of abuse.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed, including medicines needed at particular times. Staff giving medicines had been trained and assessed as competent.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed and in the way they preferred.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People enjoyed the food and had choices. Staff worked with doctors, district nurses and other professionals to support people's health.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and spoke highly of the food and the choices on offer.” from the report
Open culture
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views. Relatives said communication with the manager was good.
“There was an open and inclusive culture where people and staff were encouraged to contribute their views and ideas.” from the report
Infection control
seriousThe home did not have consistent systems for managing infection risks from visitors and professionals. Cleaning was not thorough, and inspectors found problems with bedrooms, bathrooms and waste disposal.
“We were not assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Premises and cleanliness
seriousSome rooms and shared areas were poorly maintained or unhygienic. Inspectors found trip hazards, stained and threadbare bedding, dirty chairs and an overgrown garden.
“The provider failed to ensure the premises and equipment used were clean, safe and properly maintained.” from the report
Risk assessment
seriousA person with swallowing and chewing difficulties did not have an updated choking risk assessment or interim guidance while waiting for specialist advice. The manager agreed to act immediately and later sent an updated care plan.
“This meant there was an increased risk of choking.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousRequired employment checks and references were not always completed or recorded. One staff member did not have a current DBS check.
“The provider had not always completed suitable employment checks for new staff.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingQuality checks did not identify repeated cleanliness and maintenance problems. Records were not always accurate or complete, and lessons were not learned from a complaint about cleanliness.
“There was a failure to establish effective quality assurance systems and to identify and manage risks.” from the report
- 01What cleaning, repair and maintenance work has been completed in bedrooms, bathrooms, shared areas and the garden?
- 02How are infection risks from visitors, professionals and waste now managed and checked?
- 03How do you make sure every new staff member has completed the required DBS checks, references and other recruitment checks before working?
- 04How are swallowing and choking risks assessed, recorded and communicated to staff while specialist assessments are awaited?
- 05What actions are in the improvement plan, and how do you check that problems such as poor cleanliness and incomplete records do not happen again?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the overall rating was recalculated using the previous ratings for uninspected areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2022 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 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and strong management, with one recruitment record needing attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 August 2021. Inspectors looked mainly at whether people were safe and whether the home was well-led. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe, had enough staff and were treated kindly. Inspectors found safe moving and positioning, suitable medicine systems, good infection control and effective checks on risks and incidents.
The inspection followed concerns about people getting up very early, moving and positioning, food quality and weight loss. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. One staff member did not have two references, but the home said this was an oversight and would be corrected immediately.
The other three areas were not inspected during this visit. Their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall Good rating. The previous overall rating, published in May 2019, was also Good.
Enough staff
People received support promptly, and inspectors saw that night staff did not wake people but helped them when they woke.
“There were enough staff on duty. People told us they received care and support in a timely way, our observations and the records confirmed this.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity and their independence was encouraged.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion and staff were friendly and respectful.” from the report
Safe medicines
Only trained staff gave medicines. People were asked for consent, and medicine audits were used to identify and correct problems.
“Medicines were audited and any issues identified were rectified.” from the report
Good risk management
Risks were assessed and reviewed. The home changed support and equipment after incidents, including following a fall.
“A system was in place to record and rate identified risks. Actions to mitigate these risks were recorded and monitored.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff could share views or concerns. Management used feedback, audits and incident reviews to improve the service.
“There were systems and processes in place for quality monitoring and auditing, to ensure good governance of the service.” from the report
One missing reference
minorOne staff member who had moved from a non-care role into direct care did not have two references recorded. The home accepted this was an oversight and said it would be addressed immediately.
“The staff was not lone working or undertaking personal care at this time and no harm was done.” from the report
- 01Was the missing second reference obtained, and are recruitment records now complete for every staff member?
- 02How do you monitor people's weights and respond if someone loses weight?
- 03How do you check that moving and positioning, including the use of hoists, remains safe and follows each person's care plan?
- 04How do you make sure people are supported to get up according to their own routine and wishes?
- 05How are medicine audits, incidents and relatives' feedback followed up and recorded?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 September 2021 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 The Thatched House
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 2015.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.