Thornage Hall Independent Living

People worked on the bio-dynamic farm and were self-sufficient and had access to a range of meaningful activities which taught them valuable life skills.

There was a registered manager in post who was supported by a full team of staff.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgement's about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

We judged people to have a meaningful life with access to the community, and they were able to participate in things they enjoyed with hobbies, interests, and good connections with family. Staff supported people to stay healthy and access balanced diets, regular exercise and health care including alternative therapies.

People’s independence was promoted and risks associated with their environment were assessed and reduced as far as reasonably possible. People participated in workshops which included crafts, arts, and computing.

People were supported to keep their homes well maintained and some people were independent with their finances, medicines, and travel.

Improvements we identified during the inspection were addressed in a timely way. Whilst we felt this was a good service; we raised concerns about medicines and accountability. Some of the newer staff were not clear about medication processes where people self- administered, staff were not following the medicines policy and checking daily that medicines had been taken appropriately. Staff were acting in accordance with the persons wishes and checking weekly, but processes need to be followed and clear. The registered manager took appropriate action, and the staff induction process had been strengthened very recently.

We raised concerns about site security. Risks associated with site security should be more robust and if people were choosing to visit each other, whilst this should be encouraged, staff should consider people’s rights to privacy.

The houses were in good order with designated maintenance and robust refurbishment, replacement, and auditing to ensure the building and equipment were well maintained.We discussed with the maintenance team and the registered manager about the need for dynamic risk assessment to take into account changes in people’s sensory and cognitive needs.Traditionally ground floor windows were not restricted, and we found wardrobes were not fixed to the wall and there were internal steps, uncovered radiators and pipework. Whilst we assured there was no immediate risks to people further consideration should be given to future proofing the service as people's needs change.

Staff recruitment was robust and new staff told us they were well supported through their induction with regular check ins and induction booklet. Staff completed training relevant to people’s needs.

There was a strong emphasis on culture and the management team collaborated closely with people, staff, and stakeholders to help promote a positive safety culture and ensure the service was adapted to people’s individual needs. Care reviews had taken place, and the service was well supported by the GP and other health care professionals.

There were good quality assurance systems in place to help ensure the service was run and managed effectively in line with people’s needs and relevant legislation. Feedback was sought and used to improve the service people received and was inclusive of visitors and relatives to the service who could also contribute to the process.