Thameside

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) recently inspected Thameside, a residential care home for up to 61 individuals with physical frailty and dementia. This report summarises the inspectors' findings across five key areas of care. The inspection aimed to assess the quality of care provided and identify areas for improvement to ensure residents receive safe, effective, compassionate, responsive, and well-managed support.

In terms of safety, inspectors found that while many safety procedures were in place, there were instances where environmental risks and equipment checks were not consistently managed according to policy, partly due to a temporary lack of a dedicated maintenance person. There were also some concerns regarding the storage of creams, though action was taken by management to address this. The home was generally clean, with effective infection control measures and safe handling of medicines. However, some staff felt that in certain areas with higher resident needs, staffing levels did not always allow for sufficient time to provide all aspects of care. Safeguarding procedures were robust, and staff were well-trained to protect residents from abuse.

Regarding effectiveness, the service consistently achieved good outcomes for residents. Assessments of needs and choices were thorough, using nationally recognised tools. Staff were well-trained and skilled, with ongoing development opportunities, leading to high confidence from residents and their families. Residents were well-supported with their nutritional needs, with observations of mealtimes being relaxed and food well-presented, although some portion sizes were noted as occasionally small. Staff worked effectively with external healthcare professionals, ensuring timely and appropriate referrals and communication.

The caring aspect of the service received positive feedback. Family members spoke highly of staff engagement with their relatives, describing interactions as caring and respectful. Residents and their families were given opportunities to voice their opinions, and staff consistently upheld residents' dignity and privacy.

In the area of responsiveness, the service demonstrated a good ability to adapt to residents' needs. Care plans were person-centred, and information was provided in an accessible format. The home had systems in place for handling complaints, which were addressed according to policy. While activities were available, inspectors made a recommendation for greater variety. Residents were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives, with staff employing the least restrictive approaches.

Finally, concerning the well-led aspect of the service, inspectors noted that governance systems did not always fully support consistent improvement and sustain safe care. While quality assurance processes were in place, they did not always identify all areas for improvement or potential risks. Recommendations were made regarding the variety of activities offered. Despite these points, the service demonstrated commitment to making necessary improvements following the inspection.