Thorndene Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Providing Information
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans were not very person centred and did not state people’s preferences. For example, one person’s care plan stated that staff should leave them with emergency call devises and other personal items, but did not state what these were. Another care plan instructed staff to make lunch and drinks according to the person’s preferences or dietary requirements, but the care plan did not state what this meant for the person.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was not always available in formats that might aid people's understanding and choice, such as photographs and pictures.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Healthcare professionals were involved in peoples care and support. However, some staff were not aware of the current support people required or why care was provided in a particular way. This showed communication between the staff team was poor. Action then taken by the management team was sporadic and not robust enough to ensure people had relevant access.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Documentation did not always reflect robust working arrangements with external health and social care partners, and as such, positive outcomes for people were not always routinely monitored.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. End of life care wishes were not always documented within care plans. Some people did not wish to discuss this stage of their life; however, people’s likes and dislikes had not been incorporated into documentation.