CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Thorns Retirement Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, managed testing, maintained hygiene and social distancing, and could prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 February 2021. Inspectors looked at how the home prepared for and managed infection risks during the coronavirus pandemic.
The home had 12 people living there, although it could accommodate 15. Inspectors were assured that visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak arrangements were managed safely.
Staff had infection control training and said they felt confident using it. The home was clean and uncluttered, and people were supported to keep in touch with loved ones and access health advice.
The home was not given an overall rating or a Safe rating at this inspection. This was because the inspection was focused only on infection prevention and control.
Infection control training
Staff had access to detailed infection control training and said they felt confident using what they had learned.
“The registered manager had ensured staff could access comprehensive and informative training in various aspects of infection control.” from the report
Clean environment
The home and its equipment were clean, uncluttered and arranged to reduce infection risks.
“The environment and equipment had been arranged to minimise the risk of infection and was clean and clutter free.” from the report
PPE and hygiene supplies
Handwashing facilities, infection control gel and PPE were available to support safe practice.
“Adequate handwashing facilities, infection control gel and personal protective equipment (PPE) was available to support best practice.” from the report
Contact with loved ones
People were helped to stay in contact with family and friends using tablets and telephones.
“Staff supported people to use electronic tablets and telephones to maintain contact with loved ones.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How do you manage testing and possible infection outbreaks?
- 03How do you support visits and contact with relatives while reducing infection risks?
- 04How do you make sure staff receive and understand infection control training?
- 05What are the home's current full CQC ratings for areas that this inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, mainly under Safe; it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 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.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, flexible care, but medicines records and stock checks were not always complete.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 and 7 October 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience visited the home. They spoke with six residents, five relatives, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, medicines, training, incidents and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly, supported to make choices and given care that matched their needs.
There was one medicines shortfall. Stock checks were not matched against records, and some medicines records lacked allergy information or an up-to-date photograph. The registered manager took immediate action, and inspectors recommended following good practice guidance consistently.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives repeatedly praised staff for being kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors also observed positive interactions.
“Everyone we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's preferences and routines. Care was flexible, and people were supported to make choices and keep their independence.
“Care and support was flexible and tailored to people's needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home provided a wide range of activities based on people's interests. It also developed links with community groups to help reduce isolation.
“There was great emphasis on providing varied and interesting activities to promote health and well-being.” from the report
Good leadership
Residents, relatives, staff and professionals expressed confidence in the management. Audits, training and champion roles supported ongoing improvement.
“People, relatives, staff and health professionals repeatedly told us the service was well-led.” from the report
Staffing and cleanliness
People and staff said staffing levels were sufficient, and people reported that call bells were answered promptly. The home was also praised for its cleanliness.
“Everyone we spoke with commended the home on its standard of cleanliness.” from the report
Medicines checks and records
needs fixingThe home did not have a system to check medicines stocks against records, and medicines were not always checked in and carried forward during each medicines cycle. Some administration records also lacked allergy information or an up-to-date photograph.
“We found the registered manager did not have a system for checking medicines stocks against records.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after inspectors found that medicines stocks were not checked against records?
- 02How do you now make sure medicines administration records include allergies and an up-to-date photograph?
- 03How often are medicines stock balances and records checked, and who reviews the results?
- 04How are activities matched to each resident's interests, routines and abilities?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how quickly will the home respond?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the provider could not complete its Provider Information Return because of technical problems. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 October 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 The Thorns Retirement Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 August 2012.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.