CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Thornsbeach Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and care workers understood how to manage them. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable safeguarding arrangements, safe medicines systems and appropriate recruitment checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training and supervision. People's health, nutrition and mental capacity needs were assessed and supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind and respectful interactions. Staff promoted people's privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People and relatives were involved in care planning. The home supported physical, emotional, social and communication needs, including activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality checks, clear staff responsibilities and systems for seeking feedback. Staff gave positive feedback about the registered manager.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Thornsbeach Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 July 2018. One inspector spoke with one person living at the home, one relative, four care workers, the registered manager and two health and social care professionals. They also reviewed two care records, six staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing and recruitment checks, safe medicines management, individual risk assessments and staff who understood people's needs.
People were supported with their health, food, communication, privacy, dignity and activities. Care was planned with people and relatives. The home had complaints and quality monitoring systems, and no new complaints had been made at the time of the inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough suitable staff on duty, and staff did not appear rushed. Recruitment checks included references, identity, right to work and DBS checks.
“The provider ensured there were a sufficient number of suitable staff in place to support people.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored securely, records were complete and regular checks were carried out. Staff had received medicines training and understood the correct procedures.
“The provider ensured the proper and safe use of medicines.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
Inspectors saw staff spending time talking with people and treating them respectfully. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion in their day to day care and support.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's physical, emotional, social and communication needs. People and relatives were involved in planning care and activities.
“People were involved in the planning of their care.” from the report
Quality oversight
The provider carried out checks on care records, medicines, infection control, electrical equipment and fire safety. The report says the systems were effective.
“The provider had effective quality assurance systems to monitor the service.” from the report
Small amount of direct evidence
minorOnly two people were living at the home during the inspection, and inspectors spoke directly with one person. This means families may want to ask how the home performs with a larger or changing group of residents.
“At the time of our inspection there were two people using the service” from the report
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's specific mental health and safety risks?
- 02How will you involve my relative and our family in creating and reviewing their care plan?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be offered if my relative's interests or wishes changed?
- 04How would you support my relative's communication needs and provide information in a suitable format?
- 05How often would you review medicines, care records and other quality checks, and how would you tell us about any problems?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the home, including the premises and care, and it assessed all five CQC questions; two people were living there at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found suitable arrangements for safe, caring and individualised support, but there was not enough evidence to give ratings.
This was the first inspection. It was announced and took place on 30 October 2017. One inspector spoke with two people, two relatives, one care worker, the manager and four health and social care professionals. They also checked two care records, three staff records and management records.
The home supported up to four people with mental health needs. Only two people were living there, and both had moved in fairly recently. Because there was not enough information about people's experiences over a consistent period, the CQC inspected all five areas but did not rate any of them.
Inspectors found risk assessments and care plans with clear guidance. Medicines were stored and administered safely. Staff had suitable training, recruitment checks and supervision. People were treated with respect, involved in their care, supported with food and healthcare, and encouraged to take part in activities.
The manager had systems for complaints, accidents, audits and gathering feedback. The CQC said it would return in due course for a further inspection and rating.
Safe medicines
Medicines were locked away, refrigerated medicines were monitored, and records matched the medicines held.
“Staff followed safe practices for administering and storing medicines.” from the report
Clear care planning
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff practical information about people's needs, goals and how to reduce risks.
“Risk assessments and care plans contained clear information for staff.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff knew people's life histories and routines. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and dignity, including knocking before entering rooms.
“Our observations demonstrated that people were treated with respect.” from the report
Involvement and activities
People and relatives were involved in care decisions. The home asked about preferred activities and contacted local groups to find suitable options.
“People were encouraged to participate in activities they enjoyed and people's feedback was obtained to determine whether they found activities or events enjoyable or useful.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What has changed since the first inspection, and has the CQC carried out a further inspection?
- 02How do you assess and review risks specific to my relative's mental health, mobility and daily support needs?
- 03How are medicines checked now, and how would you tell us about any medicines error or change?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
- 05What activities and healthcare support are currently available, and how are my relative's choices recorded?
This was the first announced inspection and covered all five CQC questions, but the ratings were not given because only two people were living at the home and both had moved in fairly recently. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 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 Thornsbeach Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 October 2016.
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 Lewisham
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 £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.