CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Thornhill
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe recruitment, enough staff, well-managed medicines and appropriate infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was approachable and used audits, feedback and meetings to monitor and improve the quality of care.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Thornhill is rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and effective management.
This was a focused inspection on 5 July 2023. One inspector checked the Safe and Well-led areas, including staffing, medicines, infection control, records, audits and how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, good medicines management and suitable risk assessments. People and relatives gave positive feedback, and people said they felt safe.
The home supported people's choices, independence, dignity and access to the community. Care records were person-centred and up to date. The overall rating stayed Good, as the ratings for areas not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection.
Trained and sufficient staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed and training records showed full compliance across the modules reviewed.
“The providers training matrix showed 100% compliance across modules including health and safety, medication awareness and equality and diversity.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were checked regularly and staff had training and competency assessments for medicine administration.
“We were assured staff were competent in all aspects of medicine management.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home investigated accidents and used the findings to change support. Inspectors saw that actions taken had reduced falls.
“At the time of the inspection the number of falls for the month had been reduced to zero due to the actions taken by staff.” from the report
Open management
The management team communicated with people, relatives and staff. Regular audits and meetings were used to monitor care and act on feedback.
“The service had a quality assurance system which was used to identify positive practice as well as areas for improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you review my relative's individual risks and positive behaviour support plan?
- 02How do you check that medicines remain safe and that staff keep their competencies up to date?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels continue to match people's changing support needs?
- 04How will you support my relative to build independence, access the community and maintain important contacts?
- 05What were the ratings and findings for Caring, Effective and Responsive at the last comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for the other key questions were carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 2023 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, April 2021
Thornhill was inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe, personalised care, with minor infection-control issues addressed during the visit.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 15 March 2021. The inspector checked specific concerns about healthcare access, activities, people's finances and the culture in the home. The inspection also looked at infection-control arrangements.
Inspectors found that people were safe, staffing levels were suitable and people could access healthcare professionals. Care was personalised, relatives were positive, and people were supported to keep in touch with their families during the pandemic.
Most infection-control procedures were robust. However, a contractor did not follow the visiting procedure and some staff wore unnecessary protective clothing. The home took immediate action to address these issues.
The home was inspected but not rated. Its previous overall rating was Good, published on 8 February 2018. This targeted inspection did not change that rating because it did not assess all parts of the key questions.
People were kept safe
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and that staffing levels were appropriate for safe care.
“People were protected from abuse. The provider had a policy and a system in place to keep people safe.” from the report
Good healthcare support
People had ongoing access to healthcare professionals, and records confirmed this. Relatives were confident that staff would seek advice when needed.
“People had access to various external healthcare professionals to support their health and well-being.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans were tailored to each person. Staff supported people with their preferred activities and helped them maintain family contact.
“People received person-centred care which reflected their own personal needs.” from the report
Positive culture
Relatives, staff and a professional gave positive feedback about the home. Staff and managers worked together to support an inclusive culture.
“The registered manager and staff team worked together to create an inclusive culture within the service.” from the report
Quality checks
The manager and provider completed audits to check the quality of care and submitted required information to the regulator.
“The registered manager and provider had completed various audits to ensure the quality of care provided was at a good level.” from the report
Visiting procedure not followed
needs fixingA contractor did not follow the home's visiting protocol. The manager and provider took immediate action during the inspection.
“An issue was identified during inspection whereby a contractor who was on site, had not adhered to the provider's visiting protocol.” from the report
Unnecessary protective clothing
minorSome staff wore parts of their protective clothing when it was not needed. The manager and provider addressed this during the inspection.
“Staff were wearing PPE, but at times, some elements of PPE were being worn but were not required to be worn.” from the report
Fewer activities during restrictions
minorSome activities, including swimming and trampolining, were not available because of pandemic restrictions. Staff provided alternatives such as walks and a weekly disco night.
“However, due to the current pandemic some activities such as swimming and trampolining were not possible.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every contractor follows the home's visiting protocol?
- 02How do you check that staff use protective clothing correctly and only when needed?
- 03Which activities are currently available, and which activities remain affected by pandemic restrictions?
- 04How are people's healthcare appointments and medical advice recorded and followed up?
- 05How are people supported to make choices about their activities, spending and daily care?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about safety, healthcare, activities, finances and culture; it did not assess all parts of the key questions, and the previous Good ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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.
Every inspection of Thornhill
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 February 2013.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £950 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in 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.