Thurn Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.Thurn Court accommodates up to 44 people in one adapted building and provides accommodation. The service specialises in caring for older people including those with physical disabilities and people living with dementia. This includes the assessment unit for up to six people discharged from hospital for short term placement to assess ongoing care and support needs.
At the previous comprehensive inspection in February 2017 we rated the service as ‘requires improvement. We found there were not enough staff, people did not always receive person centred care, there was a lack of effective leadership and the provider’s quality assurance system was not used effectively. The provider was asked to complete an action plan to tell us what they would do to meet legal requirement for the breaches.
We carried out a focused inspection of Thurn Court on 10 August 2017. This inspection was done to check that improvements to meet legal requirements planned by the provider after our 15 February 2017 inspection had been made. We inspected the service against three of the five questions we ask about services: is the service ‘safe’, ‘responsive’ and ‘well led’? We found improvements had been made but we were unable to change the overall rating.
On 8 November 2017 another focused inspection was carried out in response to concerns about people’s safety and the management of the service. The team inspected the service against two of the five questions we ask about services: is the service ‘safe’ and ‘well led’? The service continued to be rated as 'requires improvement' because there was a lack of oversight to monitor the quality of care provided.
The provider was asked to send us an action plan that outlined how they planned to make the required improvements to meet the legal requirement. No action plan was received. We took this into account when we inspected the service.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection and our focused inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Thurn Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
This inspection took place on 27 June 2017 and was unannounced. We returned on 28 June 2018 announced to complete the inspection. At the time of our inspection visit 39 people were in residence.
We found that the provider had made the required improvements to meet the legal requirement. The overall rating of Thurn Court has improved to Good.
Thurn Court had a registered manager. 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 the provider had made improvements to how they monitored the service provided. The provider’s quality assurance system had been used effectively. Regular audits and checks were carried out and action taken when shortfalls were identified. There were arrangements in place for the service to make sure that action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service.
People were supported to stay safe. Staff recruitment procedures were followed. Staff were trained in safeguarding and other relevant safety procedures to ensure people were safe and protected from avoidable harm and abuse. There were enough staff to support people. Staffing levels were kept under review to ensure people received sufficient staff support.
Risk associated with people’s needs had been assessed; safety measures were put in place. Staff were provided with clear guidance and information to follow to meet people’s needs. Care provided was monitored and reviewed regularly.
People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored and managed safely. People’s nutritional needs were met. People had access to a range of specialist health care professionals. Staff monitored people’s health and made referrals when people’s health was of concern.
People lived in a clean and tidy home. The design and homely environment ensured people’s safety and privacy was maintained and their independence was promoted. Staff understood their responsibilities to report concerns. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed and steps to improve and learn were identified.
Systems were in place that ensured staff were trained, supervised and supported in their role. Staff training incorporated best practice. Staff worked in partnership with other health care professionals to enhance people’s quality of life.
People to be involved in decisions made about all aspects of their care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Decisions were documented and respected by staff. We saw people made day to day decisions about how they wished to spend their time.
People were supported by kind and caring staff. People had developed positive trusting relationships with the staff team. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and their independence promoted. Staff ensured people’s confidential personal information was secure.
People continued to receive care that was responsive and personalised. Staff respected and promoted people’s diverse backgrounds, choice of lifestyle including their sexual orientation. Information was made available in accessible formats to help people understand the care and support agreed. Care plans were personalised, reviewed regularly and provided staff with guidance about how people wanted to be supported. People had the opportunity express their views about their last wishes and develop an advance care plans when needed.
People took part in a range of activities and social events that were of interest to people. People maintained contact with family, friends and had links with the wider community. People’s religious and spiritual needs were met. This type of engagement enhances people’s physical and mental wellbeing, and their sense of belonging to a community.
People and relatives all spoke positively about the staff team, management and the quality of care. People had a range of methods to express their views about the service. The registered manager used feedback and complaints to bring about changes to the service.
The registered manager understood their legal responsibilities. They provided good leadership and supported staff and people who used the service. The registered manager and the staff team were committed to providing quality care and looked at ways to make improvements to enhance people’s quality of life.