Thingwall Hall Nursing Home

Updated 13 November 2020

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.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

This inspection took place on 03 November 2020 and was announced.

Updated 13 November 2020

Thingwall Hall nursing home provides care and support for up to 44 people with learning disabilities and complex support needs. The accommodation is spread over four bungalows with a smaller number of people occupying them, and a larger home with twenty bedrooms and communal areas.

At the time of our inspection there was 23 people in total living at Thingwall Hall nursing home.

At the last comprehensive inspection the service was rated good. At this inspection we saw that the service remained good.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure that people who lived at the home were safeguarded from abuse. This included training for staff which highlighted the different types of abuse and how to raise concerns. Staff we spoke with confirmed they knew how to raise concerns. Risk assessments were detailed and specific, and contained a good descriptive account for staff to follow to enable them to minimise the risk of harm occurring to people who lived at the home. Our observations showed there was plenty of staff around the home to help people with their day to day needs. Medication was well managed and only administered by either registered nurses or staff who had the correct training to enable them to do this. There was a process for analysing incidents, accidents and general near misses to determine what could be improved within the service provision. There was personal protective equipment (PPE) available within the home, and staff wore appropriate protective clothing when competing personal care tasks or serving meals.

Staff were suitably trained, supervised and appraised to enable them to provide good care to people who lived at the home. Training was a mixture of e learning and face to face courses. The service was operating in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and best interest processes were documented for people who required support with decision making. Consent was also sought and clearly documented in line with legislation and guidance. Menus were varied, people told us they had input into the menus. There was access to other medical professionals who often visited the home and were involved with people from a clinical point of view. The service was able to demonstrate good relationships with external healthcare professionals. The building had been recently refurbished to a high standard. All bedrooms were spacious and had en suite facilities. There was new floorings and directional signage around the home.

Staff treated people with kindness and respect. People were treated as individuals, and their choices and preferences were respected by staff. This was evident throughout our observations around the home, and the information recorded in people’s care plans. Staff also described how they ensured they protected people’s dignity when providing personal care. People were included in their care and support as much as possible, and there was evidence to suggest that person centred plans had been discussed with people and their relatives.

People’s support plans were person centred and contained a high level of detail about the person, their likes, dislikes, how they want to be supported and what successful support looks like for them. There was a process to listen to and respond to complaints which was clearly displayed for people in the home and any visitors if they wished to raise a formal complaint. Staff were trained to support people who were on an end of life pathway, and we saw that training was taking place for this.

The vision of the organisation was person centred and the staff we spoke with told us they liked working for the company. Quality assurance systems were robust and sampled a wide range of service provision. We saw that were issues had been identified they had been subject to an action plan which was reviewed regularly.