Archived: Thornbury House

Updated 6 May 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on the 27 March 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information when planning and undertaking the inspection. We reviewed information we held about the home including previous inspection reports and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

We spoke with two people living at the home and two family members. We also spoke with the registered manager, and three support staff. We looked at care plans and associated records for four people, four members of staff’s recruitment files, accidents and incidents records, policies and procedures and quality assurance records. We observed care and support being delivered in communal areas.

Updated 6 May 2017

We carried out this unannounced inspection on the 27 March 2017. Thornbury House provides accommodation and support with personal care to a maximum of six adults with learning disabilities or who have autism spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were four people living at the home.

There was a new manager in post who was in the process of becoming registered with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

We found people’s safety was compromised in some areas. Relevant recruitment checks were conducted before staff started working at Thornbury House to make sure they were of good character and had the necessary skills. However, for some staff unexplained gaps in employment history had not been clarified by the provider.

Staff did not always have the appropriate training to meet people’s needs and ensure their safety. At our last inspection moving and handling training for staff was identified as a need for the service. Staff had still not received this training to support people safely.

The provider did not have an effective system in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The provider did not have a duty of candour policy in place. Areas of the home were in need of updating and decorating.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care and support. However further work was required for a best interest decision.

People and their families told us they felt safe and secure when receiving care. Risk assessments were in place which minimised risks to people living at the home and fire safety checks were carried out.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. There were enough staff to keep people safe.

Staff were trained and assessed as competent to support people with medicines. Medication administration records (MAR) confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed.

New staff completed an induction designed to ensure staff understood their new role before being permitted to work unsupervised. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision and support to discuss areas of development.

People were cared for with kindness, compassion and sensitivity. Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support. This helped ensure people received personalised care in a way that met their individual needs.

People were supported and encouraged to make choices and had access to a range of activities. Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. ‘Residents meetings’ and surveys allowed people to provide feedback, which was used to improve the service.

People received varied meals, including a choice of fresh food and drinks. Staff were aware of people’s likes and dislikes.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs which were detailed in people’s care plans. Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure people received personalised care. A complaints procedure was in place.

Staff felt supported by the manager and staff meetings took place.

We identified two breaches of regulations. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of this report.