What the CQC found at Thurlaston Meadows Care Home Ltd

People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, including games, crafts and community events. Their ideas were used when planning activities.

“Staff supported people to engage in activities they enjoyed, such as dominoes, giant card games and crafts on the days of our inspection visit.” from the report

People were generally positive about the food and said they had choices. Mealtimes were relaxed and people could choose where to eat.

“People were generally positive about the food provided and told us they received a choice.” from the report

Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, personal protective equipment and visiting arrangements were being managed in line with the guidance checked.

“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report

The home was carrying out background checks to assess whether staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

“Safe recruitment procedures were being followed, to ensure people received care from suitable staff of good character.” from the report

Allegations about possible abuse were not always acted on quickly. One allegation was not addressed for over three weeks, and another was not known to the registered manager when inspectors raised it.

“Following an allegation staff had abused someone at the home, action was not taken for over three weeks to mitigate potential risks to people.” from the report

There were conflicting medicine records, medicines were not always given as prescribed, and storage temperatures were not always safe. This created a risk that people might receive too much, too little or ineffective medicine.

“This meant staff did not have clear information about when to administer people's prescribed time sensitive medicine and there was a risk people could receive too little or too much medicine.” from the report

Care plans did not always explain how staff should manage risks such as choking, dehydration, diabetes, catheter care and falls. Important professional advice was not always added to plans.

“Risk was not always identified, assessed and well-managed.” from the report

Many staff had not had Mental Capacity Act training. Some people were prevented from leaving without clear legal authorisation, and best-interest decisions were not properly recorded.

“There was no evidence of decisions being made in people's best interest and no record of consultation with people's representatives or health professionals before decisions about their care were made.” from the report

Some people said staff entered rooms without knocking, shouted when asked for help, or could not offer support at the time people wanted it. Some people also waited a long time for help with toileting.

“Another person told us staff had shouted at them when they asked for support and made them cry.” from the report

Audits and complaint records did not identify or address the problems inspectors found. The provider had not made enough improvement since the previous inspection.

“Quality assurance processes failed to effectively monitor the quality of care people received.” from the report