The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Thamesfield at Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Wargrave Road, Henley On Thames, Oxfordshire, RG9 2LX (01491) 418100

Provided and run by:
Thamesfield Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

20 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 20 October 2015 and was announced, namely the provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our intended visit. We gave the service 48 hours' notice as it is a domiciliary service and we needed to be sure that the registered manager would be available to assist us with our inspection.

The service had last been inspected on 11 November 2013. The service met all our regulatory standards at that time.

Thamesfield at Home is a domiciliary care service based within an apartment complex. It is a part of a retirement village comprising privately owned apartments and a care home in Henley on Thames. There were 18 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 told us they felt safe with the staff that supported them. Staff were trained in safeguarding procedures, that is ways of protecting people who use care services from abuse. Staff members were confident that if they reported any concerns about people’s safety, health or welfare to the team lead or to the registered manager, these would be acted upon immediately.

There was a sufficient number of staff to support people safely and effectively. Thorough recruitment practices and appropriate pre-employment checks ensured that staff were of a suitable character to care for people. Each staff member had undergone a comprehensive induction and took part in on-going training to enhance their skills and qualifications. Staff were also supported regularly through supervisions and spot check observations were carried out on their practices.

If their assessed needs and care plan required this, people were prompted by staff to take their medicines. They were also supported to see health care professionals when needed, and received appropriate healthcare to maintain their well-being.

Management and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides the legal framework for acting and making decisions on behalf of individuals who lack the mental capacity to make particular decisions for themselves. The MCA also requires that any decisions made on behalf of a person who lacks capacity, are made in the person's best interests. People were able to make decisions concerning everyday aspects of their lives themselves, which helped them maintain their independence.

People described staff as kind and responsive to their needs. They were confident that their privacy and dignity were respected at all times. People told us that they had developed positive relationships with staff.

Care plans were reviewed regularly on a monthly basis and, if people’s needs changed, these reviews were used to amend care provisions accordingly. Staff were familiar with the contents of people’s care plans and knowledgeable about people’s individual needs, backgrounds and personalities. Risk assessments were in place; they provided information about how to reduce various kinds of risk to people.

The service had a complaints policy in place. People who used the service were made aware of the complaints procedure. They told us they knew how to make a complaint and who to complaint to, should such a need arise.

We saw that staff were provided with supervisions and appraisals regularly and they felt supported by management to perform their role.

People were given opportunity to contribute to enhancing the service they received by providing feedback on its functioning at residents’ meetings. There were appropriate quality assurance procedures in place to check the quality of care people received.

11 November 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of the visit 30 of the 34 apartments were occupied. We met with four people and spoke with three staff.

People living in the apartments were all complimentary about the environment and were satisfied with the support they received People said staff were "willing and respectful". Also that staff took time when delivering personal care.

Managers had sought the views of people using the service and the feedback was generally positive but some people considered that they could be waiting for some time for staff to respond to calls for assistance. People we spoke with also told us this.

People appreciated the environment and the facilities and the food was described as "very good". People were supported to remain as independent as possible.

People's needs were regularly reviewed and the service responded promptly to the changing needs of people. Support was increased or decreased at the person's request.

Staff felt well supported by managers and although one member of staff had some concerns we saw that these were being managed through the supervision process. Staff were proud of their work and were motivated to maintain high standards.

There were a range of activities available and some people we spoke with did enjoy these.

People using the service felt safe and there were arrangements in place to ensure that people were safeguarded from the risk of harm or abuse.

5 June 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us they were happy with the care they received. One person told us "I am well looked after" and another person told us the care was "very good". People who use the service were involved in planning their care and were able to participate in making decisions about their care and treatment.

Care plans contained information which was specific to people's needs and included risk assessments. The plans were regularly reviewed by the care manager and the people receiving care.

We looked at the arrangements in place for ensuring people were protected from the risk of infection. The provider had appropriate policies and procedures in place and staff were able to describe the steps they took to minimise the risk of infection.

During a previous inspection we looked at the recruitment of care staff. We found that the provider had not obtained all the information required relating to the recruitment of workers. The provider has taken steps to address this and has made changes to the application form used to recruit staff. The provider has also reviewed the information it holds on the staff currently employed to ensure all the information required is now documented.

We looked at the arrangements in place for the provider to assess and monitor the quality of the services provided and found that there were mechanisms in place.

22 January 2013

During a routine inspection

People told us they were looked after very well by the care workers. One person told us "staff are very nice". People receiving care had the opportunity to review their care plans every six months.

We saw care plans contained information which was specific to people's needs. The care plans contained information on people's likes and dislikes as well as risk assessments.

Staff had recently received medication training. We spoke with the GP for some of the people receiving care. He told us he had no concerns with the administration of medicines.

We looked at three staff files and found they contained some, but not all, information required related to the recruitment of workers who could undertake regulated activities.

14 December 2011

During a routine inspection

The Thamesfield at Home office is situated in the main building at Thamesfield, which also contains communal facilities including a restaurant, hairdressing salon and lounge bar, all available to the people living in the private apartments. This review only deals with the provider's provision of personal care to the people living in the private apartments. Other facilities and services offered by the provider to the people living in the private apartments are outside our remit and not included in this review. The care home at Thamesfield is registered as a separate location and is also not included in this review of compliance. Information regarding Thamesfield Nursing Home can be accessed on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

At the time of this review 17 of the people living in the private apartments were receiving a personal care service from Thamesfield at Home.

We were able to speak to people using the service who were in the communal rooms of the main building on the day of our visit to the office. Following our visit we obtained the views of additional people using the service via pre-arranged telephone calls.

People we spoke with told us they had been fully involved in decisions about the level of care they required and the planning of the support they received. They told us that they felt their personal care needs were being met and that they had confidence in the care and support provided by the service. They felt the staff always respected their privacy and dignity and were happy to do things differently if asked.

All people we spoke with were complimentary about the staff with one person commenting that: "They look after me and give me a feeling of confidence" and another that: "They are very helpful and caring. I never have any complaints."