The Mill House

Updated 25 February 2021

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.

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

This inspection took place on 21 January 2021 and was announced.

Updated 25 February 2021

We carried out the inspection of Thornton Hill on 24 and 31 August 2017. At the time of our inspection there were 39 people using the service. This was an unannounced inspection.

Thornton Hill is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for people. It is owned and managed by Anchor Trust. The service is a large converted manor house with a purpose built extension known as the Manor Wing. Thornton Hill is set in its own grounds and overlooks the valley. It is in the village of Thornton-in-Craven, which is approximately eight miles from Skipton.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good overall. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.

Since our last inspection the service had appointed a new manager who was in the process of registering with the CQC. However as the manager's registration had not been validated and had been on-going since April, we found the condition of registration had not been met. 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.

People and staff spoke positively about the manager, overall leadership and management of the service. The provider was continuously seeking and implementing new ideas and ways for the service to improve. They stayed abreast of best practice and current research in the field of dementia care and brought new ideas into the service in order to enhance people's quality of life.

Staff told us they were well supported. We saw supervisions and team meetings regularly took place, however some staff appraisals were missing.

We saw that some of the communal internal and external areas in the home looked clean and were repaired when required. We noted the home manager was in the process of implementing improvements needed in the service.

We found that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) 2009 legislation had been adhered to in the home. The manager told us of the people at the home who lacked capacity. We found appropriate Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications had been submitted to the Local Authority in relation to people's care.

Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse or harm. They followed appropriate guidance to minimise identified risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to check their suitability and fitness to support people.

Staff ensured the environment was clear of slip and trip hazards to support people to move freely around. The premises and equipment were regularly maintained and serviced to ensure these were safe.

Medicines were stored, recorded and managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People continued to receive support that was personalised and met their specific needs. Senior managers reviewed people's needs regularly to ensure current support arrangements continued to meet these.

Staff received relevant training and were supported by senior staff to help them to meet people's needs effectively. Staff knew people well and had a good awareness and understanding of their needs, preferences and wishes.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. They enjoyed the meals they ate at the service. People were also supported to stay healthy and to access healthcare services when needed.

Staff encouraged people to participate in a wide range of activities and to maintain relationships with the people that mattered to them in order to promote social inclusion. Staff were warm and welcoming of visitors to the home and friends and families were free to visit when they wished.

Staff were caring, treated people with dignity and respect and ensured people's privacy was maintained particularly when being supported with their personal care needs.

People were supported to retain as much independence and control as possible with daily living tasks. People were encouraged to make choices and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People and staff were encouraged to provide feedback about how the service could be improved. We saw a number of improvements had been made by the provider which had had a positive impact on the quality of care that people experienced.

People were satisfied with the support they received from staff. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about any aspect of the support they received. The provider maintained arrangements to deal with people's complaints appropriately.

Regular checks and reviews of the service continued to be made by senior staff to ensure people experienced good quality safe care and support at all times.