CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Thornbury
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks, medicines, staffing and recruitment were managed safely. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and supported the person to take positive risks while maintaining independence.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were based on detailed assessments and reviewed regularly. Staff had relevant training, supervision and support, and helped the person with nutrition, healthcare and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff developed caring relationships and understood the person's preferences and ways of communicating. The person was treated with dignity and involved in day-to-day decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff supported community activities, friendships and relationships. Activities were discussed daily, but there was no formal activity programme.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, regular oversight and an open culture where staff could raise concerns. Audits and checks were used to monitor safety and quality.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with activities arranged informally rather than through a formal programme.
This was the first planned comprehensive inspection of the home. One person was living there at the time, although the home can support up to two people with learning disabilities or autism.
The inspector reviewed records, including care, recruitment, health and safety and safeguarding records. They observed staff supporting the person, spoke with staff and managers, and later spoke with a relative.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says legal requirements were met. Staff were described as caring and knowledgeable, and the person's care was based on their needs, communication and preferences.
Consistent staffing
The home used a regular staff team. This helped the person and staff build familiar, positive relationships.
“The provider ensured the person had regular staff meaning the person and staff were able to build positive relationships.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff knew the person's life history, preferences and communication needs. They used body language, eye contact, simple signing and pictorial aids when needed.
“Staff observed body language, eye contact and simple sign language to interpret what people needed.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were received, stored, given and returned safely. Risk assessments gave staff clear actions to reduce harm while supporting independence.
“Medicines were managed safely to ensure people received them safely and in accordance with their health needs and the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff felt valued and supported, and said they could raise concerns. Managers and the provider carried out regular checks on safety and quality.
“Regular checks were completed by the staff, registered manager and provider to make sure people were safe and that they were happy with the service they received.” from the report
No formal activity programme
minorActivities were not formally organised. The person discussed each day with staff how they wanted to spend their time, so families should check how choices and opportunities are planned now.
“Activities in the service were not formally organised. Discussions with the person were held daily with staff about how they wished to spend their time.” from the report
- 01How are activities and time in the community planned now, and how do you record the person's choices?
- 02How do you make sure the same or familiar staff support the person?
- 03How will you support someone who uses body language, signing or pictorial aids to communicate?
- 04How are medicines checked, and how often are staff's medicines skills assessed?
- 05How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when the person's needs or goals change?
This was the first planned comprehensive inspection and covered all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; one person was living at the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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 Thornbury
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.