14 Thornholme Close

This report from the Care Quality Commission (CQC) provides an overview of the recent inspection of 14 Thornholme Close, a care home for individuals with autism, mental health needs, and/or learning disabilities. The inspection assessed the service's performance across five key areas: safety, effectiveness, caring, responsiveness, and leadership. The findings highlight several significant concerns that require immediate attention to ensure the well-being and quality of care for residents. The report details specific areas where improvements are needed to meet regulatory standards.

Regarding safety, the home faced considerable challenges. There was an overreliance on agency staff, with concerns about their training and the long hours they sometimes worked. Environmental risks, such as a mirrored wardrobe and exposed nails on a radiator cover, were identified but not always addressed promptly. Safeguarding systems were found to be ineffective, with incidents not always being reported or learned from, which placed residents at risk. The language used in incident reports also indicated a lack of understanding and empathy towards autistic individuals.

In terms of how effective the care is, the service did not always have staff with the appropriate skills and experience to meet residents' needs. A lack of consistent training for agency staff, particularly in communication methods like Makaton and PECS, meant they were not adequately equipped to support residents. The property itself was also deemed unsuitable, lacking sufficient space for residents when they experienced distress. Assessments were not always completed thoroughly, leading to a lack of guidance for staff on supporting residents with challenging behaviours.

When it comes to caring, while staff attempted to support residents with activities they enjoyed, these efforts were limited by environmental and support constraints. Relatives expressed concerns about their loved ones' well-being due to staff not always having the necessary skills to support individuals with autism. The culture within the service was not always inclusive or empowering for residents.

In its responsiveness, the service did not consistently meet the diverse needs of the people it supported. While efforts were made to support residents with activities they liked, these were sometimes restricted. Concerns were raised by relatives about residents' health and well-being due to the staff's skill levels. The service's statement of purpose indicated it could meet a range of needs, but this was not consistently demonstrated in practice.

Finally, concerning how well-led the service is, there was a significant lack of oversight from the provider and management. Monitoring processes were not effective in identifying the shortfalls that the inspection revealed. A reliance on agency staff and a lack of oversight meant that the service was not assured of a consistent and skilled workforce. The provider had not always identified incidents as safeguarding concerns or reported them appropriately, creating risks for residents. The overall management and governance arrangements were not robust enough to ensure the safety and quality of the service.