CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Thornhill House Church Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Risks were assessed and managed, staffing was considered sufficient, and medicines were generally handled safely, although records for 'as and when' medicines were initially not sufficient.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on individual needs and choices. Staff had suitable training and support, people received appropriate food and healthcare, and consent and best-interest processes were followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. People were treated as individuals, supported to remain independent, and involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff knew people's preferences. The home offered varied activities, supported relationships and community involvement, and responded to communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management promoted an open and supportive culture. People, relatives and professionals gave positive feedback, and audits and meetings were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but records for some medicines and safety checks were not always sufficient.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 July 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with seven people, four relatives, six staff and three visiting professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, staff records and management records.
People and relatives described excellent care and said they felt safe, respected and listened to. Inspectors saw caring staff, personalised care plans, good activities and strong links with the local community. Staff worked well with health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were generally managed safely, but records for 'as and when' medicines needed improvement. They also found that records did not fully show the safety checks being carried out. The registered manager acted on both issues during the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently described staff as caring and compassionate. Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“Everyone told us staff were exceptionally caring, kind and supportive of them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed information about people's lives, preferences, communication and support needs. Staff adapted care to individual routines and interests.
“The care plans were all about the person and reflected their needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to take part in trips, hobbies and activities linked to their interests. The home also involved local schools, churches, groups and villagers.
“There was a community involvement with schools, brownies, the local churches and the local villagers.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with health and social care professionals and included their advice in people's care plans. Professionals gave consistently positive feedback about communication and care.
“The registered manager and staff regularly worked with other professionals to ensure the best outcomes for people living in the home.” from the report
Responsive management
The registered manager accepted feedback during the inspection and acted straight away on the recording issues identified.
“The registered manager was responsive to feedback given throughout the inspection and immediately acted on the findings.” from the report
Records for occasional medicines
needs fixingThe home generally managed medicines safely, but instructions and records for 'as and when' medicines were not sufficient when inspectors checked them. The manager acted immediately to improve the guidance.
“However, we found that the documentation for 'as and when' medications was not sufficient.” from the report
Safety check records
needs fixingInspectors found that safety checks on the premises and equipment were being carried out, but the paperwork did not fully show this. The issue was addressed during the inspection.
“Documentation did not always reflect the in-depth processes that were in place.” from the report
- 01How are 'as and when' medicines now recorded, including when they are given and why?
- 02How do you record regular safety checks on the premises and equipment?
- 03How will you keep care plans updated when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 04What activities and community links would be available for my relative's interests?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in care reviews and decisions?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring, personalised support, with safety, effectiveness and leadership rated Good.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 8 December 2016. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff, a healthcare professional and the manager. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, events and quality checks.
The home was supporting 19 people, including some people living with dementia. Inspectors found people were safe, received their medicines, had enough staff support and could access healthcare. Staff were trained and understood how to support people to make decisions.
The strongest findings were about kindness and personal attention. People were treated with dignity, involved in their care and supported to keep their interests, relationships, community links and independence. Activities were imaginative and tailored to individuals.
The overall rating was Outstanding. Caring and Responsive were rated Outstanding. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. The previous inspection in September 2014 found that the standards reviewed at that time were being met.
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and a healthcare professional consistently described staff as compassionate. Inspectors saw staff listening carefully, protecting dignity and responding patiently.
“Without exception people who used the service, relatives and a health professional told us that staff were caring and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised care
People were involved in planning their support. Staff knew their histories, likes and dislikes, and adapted care when needs or preferences changed.
“People received a personalised service which was responsive to their individual needs and there was an emphasis on each person's identity and what was important to them.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
People said staff came quickly when needed. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements and suitable checks on equipment and new employees.
“There were sufficient staff to ensure that people were supported safely.” from the report
End-of-life care
The home had advance planning and a specific care plan for people receiving palliative care. Previous experiences of deaths were reviewed to improve future support.
“We have devised a critical care plan which prompts and ensures high standards of care for people receiving palliative care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's care plan if their health, communication or mobility changed?
- 02How many staff would usually be available on each shift, including evenings, and how would you respond if more support was needed?
- 03How would you manage medicines prescribed only when needed, or medicines given without a person's knowledge?
- 04How would you support my relative's hobbies, friendships, faith, cultural needs and visits from family?
- 05How would you plan and review my relative's care if they became seriously ill or needed end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, including care for up to 19 people. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Thornhill House Church Lane
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 2011.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.