CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Thornton House Home for Older People
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, safe admissions, visiting arrangements, cleaning and outbreak management. The provider also described measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Thornton House Home for Older People was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 07 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, supporting safe admissions and visits, and managing infection risks. They also found cleaning schedules, trained staff, updated guidance and regular checks of the environment.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide an overall rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including safe use of PPE and access to testing.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had cleaning schedules, designated domestic staff and regular checks of cleanliness and the environment.
“Cleaning schedules were in place and followed. There were designated domestic staff and the registered manager carried out regular checks of the environment and cleanliness.” from the report
Staff training and guidance
Staff had training on infection prevention and control, and current guidance and policies were available.
“Staff had received training to help ensure their knowledge on infection prevention and control was up to date.” from the report
Contact with visitors
People could receive visits if they wished, with a policy and visiting area in place to support this.
“People were supported to have visits from people if this was their wish.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and have they affected people's care?
- 02How often are cleaning schedules and the environment checked, and what happens if a problem is found?
- 03How are visitors currently supported, and what visiting area is available?
- 04How often are staff trained or updated on infection prevention and control?
- 05What is the most recent overall CQC rating, since this inspection was not rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 2022 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, August 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with care planning, medicines, infection control and management systems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 15 and 16 July 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about medicines, infection prevention and equipment. They spoke with seven people and 12 staff, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was not always safe. Some care plans did not contain enough information about people's risks and behaviours. Inspectors also found problems with medicine storage, infection control, fire doors and call bell responses. The call bell system could not record response times, so concerns about delays could not be fully checked.
The home was not always well-led. Audits had failed to find several problems, and some incidents and medicine record errors had not been investigated. There were also gaps in the manager's oversight of training records for catering and housekeeping staff.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 11 December 2018, to Requires Improvement. The provider acted during and after the inspection, but CQC required an action plan and said it would monitor progress and return for a further inspection.
Safe recruitment
The required checks, including references and DBS checks, had been completed before staff provided care.
“Staff were recruited safely. The required pre-employment checks were completed to help ensure staff employed were suitable.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
Care staff had relevant safeguarding training and understood how to prevent, identify and report abuse.
“Care staff were aware of their individual responsibilities to prevent, identify and report abuse.” from the report
Working with professionals
The management team worked with other organisations and professionals to meet people's health and social needs.
“Care records showed the registered manager and provider were working with other organisations and professionals.” from the report
Family visits
Face-to-face visits from families had restarted in line with guidance to support people's wellbeing.
“Onsite face to face visits had commenced to promote people's wellbeing.” from the report
Risk and fire safety
seriousSome care plans and emergency evacuation plans lacked important information. Three fire doors were wedged open, which inspectors said created a serious risk if there was a fire.
“Propping or wedging fire doors open compromised the safety of people, putting them at serious risk, should a fire occur.” from the report
Medicines
seriousSome medicines and thickening powders were not stored securely. Some medicine administration records did not show that every medicine had been signed for.
“Not all medicine administration records (MAR) we reviewed showed all medicines had been signed for.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome staff were not using masks correctly or changing out of uniforms at the home. Inspectors also found that some areas, including bedrooms, did not look visibly clean and hygienic.
“In some areas, which included people's bedrooms the home did not look visibly clean and hygienic.” from the report
Call bell response
needs fixingPeople reported waiting a long time for call bells to be answered. The system was also incorrectly identifying a room and did not record response times for management to review.
“Staff did not always respond when call bells were pressed.” from the report
Weak monitoring systems
seriousAudits did not identify several problems, and some incidents and medicine record errors were not investigated promptly. This was part of the breach of good governance.
“The provider's systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service had not identified and addressed the shortfalls highlighted in this report.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every care plan records each person's risks, behaviours, nutrition needs and safe support guidance?
- 02How are medicines and thickening powders now stored securely, and how are medicine administration records checked for missing signatures?
- 03What changes have been made to call bells, and can the home now show response times and investigate delays?
- 04How are fire doors, emergency evacuation plans, PPE use and bedroom cleanliness checked each day?
- 05What action has been taken to improve audits, investigate incidents and give the manager oversight of all staff training records?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 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 Thornton House Home for Older People
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Thornton House Home for Older People →
- August 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Thornton House Home for Older People →
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.