CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Thorley House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, carrying out testing and managing its premises and infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures, as part of the CQC’s response to coronavirus.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well maintained. Staff used protective equipment correctly, changed it between supporting different people, and had their practice checked daily. COVID-19 testing, social distancing and cleaning arrangements were also in place.
Visits were restricted in line with local guidance at the time. Staff helped people keep in touch with relatives and friends by telephone and Zoom. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean premises
The home had regular cleaning schedules, and the registered manager monitored them.
“The premises were clean and well-maintained.” from the report
Safe use of PPE
Staff used protective equipment appropriately and changed it between supporting different people. Their practice was checked daily.
“Staff practice in the use of PPE was monitored daily by the registered manager.” from the report
Testing and distancing
COVID-19 testing and social distancing arrangements were in place. The layout and some furniture had been changed to reduce infection risks.
“Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with good practice guidance.” from the report
Keeping in touch
When visits were restricted, staff supported people to maintain contact with relatives and friends by telephone and Zoom.
“During this time staff were supporting people to stay in contact with their relatives and friends via telephone and Zoom calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection in February 2021?
- 02How are staff’s use of PPE and cleaning practices monitored now?
- 03How often are people living here and staff tested for infections?
- 04How can relatives visit and keep in contact with residents now?
- 05What are the home’s current ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records of staff supervision and meetings needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 14 and 15 November 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also looked around the home and checked care files, staff records, medicines records and audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments, clean surroundings and staff who treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.
People had personalised care plans and choices about their care, food and activities. The home also supported people's health needs and recorded wishes about end of life care.
There were some management issues that did not lower the ratings. Supervision was not always completed as often as the provider's policy required. Records did not clearly show how often staff meetings took place. Inspectors said they would check this at the next inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors observed patient and friendly interactions, with staff supporting people's dignity and independence.
“People living at the home were positive about the care and support provided, telling us that staff were kind, respectful and treated them with dignity.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records were accurate and checks showed medicines had been given as prescribed. Staff who administered medicines had training and regular competency checks.
“Medicines were stored, handled and administered safely and effectively. Documentation had been completed correctly and consistently. All medicines checked had been administered as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, life history and the support they wanted. Reviews were used to make changes promptly.
“Each file we viewed contained a range of personalised care plans which covered areas such as personal care, nutrition, mobility, communication, mental health and wellbeing.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered varied activities, outings and visits from entertainers. It also worked with local groups and voluntary organisations.
“We saw a mix of activities were organised throughout the week which catered for all interests and abilities along with regular outings and visits from entertainers.” from the report
Supervision was not always on schedule
needs fixingSupervision and appraisals had taken place, but not consistently as often as the provider's policy required. The home had identified this and had a plan to address it.
“We saw supervision and appraisals had been scheduled and completed, however not consistently in line with the providers policy, which stated staff should receive at least four per year.” from the report
Staff meeting records were unclear
minorStaff gave different accounts of how often meetings happened, and the records held did not clearly show the full number of meetings. Inspectors asked the home to use an annual schedule and said they would follow this up.
“There was no clear schedule as to when meetings had been held and when talking to staff, they mentioned differing time scales of monthly, bi-monthly and quarterly.” from the report
- 01How often do staff now receive supervision and appraisals, and how do you check these happen on time?
- 02How often are staff meetings held now, and where can families see the schedule and minutes?
- 03The report said staff were sometimes very busy. How do you check staffing levels remain enough when people's needs change?
- 04How are people's personal activities, health needs and end of life wishes reviewed after they move into the home?
This was the first inspection since the home re-registered after a change of ownership, and it looked at the premises and care across all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 December 2018 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 Thorley House Residential Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Thorley House Residential Care Home →
- December 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Thorley House Residential Care Home →
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 October 2017.
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 Wigan
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”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.