Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Thornhill Nursing Home

Requires improvementpublished 13 February 2026, 7 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, May 2018

Thornhill Nursing Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care but some records, cleaning and maintenance needed improvement.

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, the manager and visitors. They reviewed care plans, staff records, training, medicines, maintenance information and quality checks.

The home remained Good overall and was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were generally safe, staff were kind and respectful, medicines were managed safely, and the management team had good oversight.

The report also identified some areas to improve. These included more thorough cleaning in some places, occasional waits when staff were busy, incomplete details in some care records, and more frequent mattress checks. Inspectors recommended improving records about people's involvement in care planning.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe medicines management

    Medicines were stored securely, given according to people's needs and recorded after administration. Staff had training and their competence had been checked.

    “Medicines were securely stored and managed safely.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful staff

    Inspectors observed staff speaking politely and warmly to people. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and emotional needs.

    “Staff demonstrated a kind and caring approach to their interactions with each person” from the report
  • Good management oversight

    The manager was active and visible, and the home had organised audits, meetings and action plans to monitor quality.

    “We found very clear and detailed evidence of management oversight and quality assurance in the home.” from the report
  • Improved consent practice

    The home had addressed concerns from the previous inspection about consent. Staff understood people's rights and supported daily choices.

    “At this inspection we found the provider had taken all steps to address this” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Some cleaning and wear and tear

    needs fixing

    The home was generally clean, but inspectors found that some areas, including the sluice and soft furnishings, needed more thorough cleaning and tidying. There was also wear and tear in the building.

    “The home was clean overall, although more attention was needed to ensure more thorough tidying and cleaning in places, particularly the sluice area and soft furnishings” from the report
  • Occasional waits for staff

    minor

    Staffing was generally enough to meet people's needs, but some people said they had to wait when staff were supporting someone else.

    “some people said they had to wait if staff were busy supporting others.” from the report
  • Incomplete care records

    needs fixing

    Some care plans lacked details, including continence support and end of life wishes. People's and relatives' involvement in care planning was not always recorded.

    “We recommend care records are reviewed to include greater detail and show where people, relatives and other professionals have been involved in the care planning process.” from the report
  • Fluid intake records

    needs fixing

    Staff monitored food and drink where there were health concerns, but care records did not always state the amount of fluid a person should receive.

    “the optimum fluid intake was not always recorded on people's care records for staff to know when they had been given enough.” from the report
  • Activities on the inspection day

    minor

    The home offered different activities and outings, but inspectors did not see a wide range of activities on the day because the activities coordinator was away.

    “although this member of staff was on leave during the inspection and so we did not see a wide range of activities on the day.” from the report
  • Mattress checks

    minor

    Maintenance checks were recorded, but the manager agreed that mattress checks needed to happen more often and said this would be reviewed immediately.

    “although mattress checks needed to be more frequent, which the manager agreed to immediately review.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to care plans so they include continence needs, end of life wishes and people's or relatives' involvement?
  2. 02How do you record and monitor each person's required fluid intake?
  3. 03What has been done to improve cleaning in the sluice area and soft furnishings, and to address wear and tear?
  4. 04How often are mattresses now checked, and what happens if a problem is found?
  5. 05How do you make sure people have activities and outings when the activities coordinator is away?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, and the overall Good rating remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 May 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Thornhill Nursing Home

2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. May 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Thornhill Nursing Home →

  2. April 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. March 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. April 2012

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 April 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees

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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
Claire A., about Carla M.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
Marion L., about Primrose N.
See live-in carers near KirkleesProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.