CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Thurston House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements and the policy being up to date. They also recorded that the provider had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Thurston House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and staffing arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 February 2022. Inspectors gave the home two hours' notice. They looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found that staffing measures were in place and that staff had worked flexibly to keep people safe. They were assured about testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, visiting arrangements and the home's infection control policy.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Staffing response
The manager had taken steps to make sure staffing was sufficient. Staff worked flexibly during a difficult situation to maintain safe care and support.
“Staff had worked flexibly and had gone above and beyond during a difficult situation to ensure people received safe care and support.” from the report
Infection control
Staff followed infection prevention procedures, including using PPE and washing and sanitising their hands. PPE stations and sufficient supplies were available.
“Staff received infection prevention and control (IPC) training and followed robust IPC procedures.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic, with regular cleaning and disinfection of frequently touched areas.
“The environment was clean and hygienic, staff followed cleaning schedules which included regular cleaning and disinfection of high touch points” from the report
Monitoring
The home carried out monthly infection control audits and tracked any required improvements.
“A monthly internal infection control audit was undertaken. The outcome of the audit was entered onto the provider's electronic recording system” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many staff are currently available on each shift, and how would you manage staffing pressures if someone was absent?
- 02How are infection control audits carried out now, and how do you check that any required improvements are completed?
- 03What testing and vaccination arrangements currently apply to staff, visiting professionals and residents?
- 04How are visitors supported to follow infection prevention and control procedures?
- 05Can you explain how you assess and meet my relative's individual care needs, given that this inspection did not assess caring, effective, responsive or well-led care?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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, June 2019
Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement after recent management changes and delays in responding to some concerns.
The CQC made an unannounced planned inspection on 15 April 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines records, training and supervision records, complaints, surveys and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People told inspectors they felt safe and happy. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, care was personalised, and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. There had been three manager changes in the previous 12 months. The new manager and regional manager had made improvements, but these changes had not yet been fully established. The overall rating remained Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“People felt safe and happy living at Thurston House.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff were trained to administer medicines and records were completed accurately. Audits also looked for minor recording errors.
“Records showed the medicines administration records (MAR) were completed accurately by staff after giving people their medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff spent time getting to know people, respected their privacy and supported their choices and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's goals, interests, health needs and preferred ways of receiving support. People and relatives were involved in reviews.
“People, and where applicable their relatives, were fully involved in developing and reviewing support plans.” from the report
Improvements after the previous inspection
Inspectors found that earlier concerns about window restrictors, food hygiene, the environment and confidential information had been addressed and sustained.
“At this inspection we saw that changes had been made and sustained.” from the report
Frequent management changes
needs fixingThere had been three manager changes in the previous year. Staff said supervision, meetings and leadership had not been consistent, making the period unsettling.
“In the previous 12 months there had been three changes of managers and this had impacted on the quality of the service and the support that people and staff had received.” from the report
Management systems not yet established
needs fixingInspectors found that action on the environment and maintenance had not always been timely. Feedback had also not consistently been collected from people, relatives and others involved in care.
“Timely action had not always been taken in relation to the environment and maintenance and quality assurance feedback had not been sought from people, their relatives or other people involved in their care.” from the report
Changes still being embedded
needs fixingThe new management team had clear plans and had made a positive start, but inspectors had not yet seen the changes become fully consistent across the home.
“At this inspection we saw that changes had been recently made, however, they had not yet been embedded in to the service.” from the report
- 01How are you making sure the new manager's changes become consistent and remain in place?
- 02How often will families and residents be asked for feedback about the home?
- 03How are maintenance issues identified, recorded and followed up?
- 04How will you make sure staff receive regular supervision and team meetings?
- 05How do you assess whether a new resident is compatible with the people already living at the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions and followed an overall Requires Improvement rating at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 2019 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 Thurston House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 2010.
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 Milton Keynes
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. 90 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.