Thornfield Care Home is owned by Mr and Mrs Poordil who are throughout this report referred to as the provider. The home is located in a residential area, approximately one mile from the centre of Lymington. It can accommodate up to 17 people. The accommodation is arranged over two floors with a stair lift available to access the upper floor. On the ground floor there is an open plan living/ dining area from which there is access to the kitchen, laundry and the office. Four of the rooms were shared rooms. There is a large, mature garden with seating areas. The home does not provide nursing care. There were 16 people living in the home when we inspected, some of whom were living with dementia.

At the last inspection in April 2015, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found that the service remained good.

The service had a registered manager who was also the registered provider. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults, and had a good understanding of the signs of abuse and neglect.

Safe recruitment practices were followed and there were sufficient numbers of experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

People were supported by a staff team that received the training, supervision and support that they needed to provide people with care and support that met people's needs.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this in practice.

Improvements were planned to update aspects of the premises and make the design and layout of the home more suitable for people living with dementia.

People told us the food was tasty and that they were supported to have enough to eat and drink.

People told us they were supported by staff that were kind and caring and that they were treated with dignity and respect.

Care plans contained the information needed to support staff to provide people’s care in a manner that was responsive to their individual needs.

People were supported to take part in activities which they told us they enjoyed.

People spoke positively about how well organised and managed the service was.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service and to ensure people were receiving appropriate support.

Thornfield Care Home is owned by Mr and Mrs Poordil who are throughout this report referred to as the provider. The home is located in a residential area, approximately one mile from the centre of Lymington. It can accommodate up to 17 people. The accommodation is arranged over two floors with a stair lift available to access the upper floor. On the ground floor there is an open plan living/ dining area from which there is access to the kitchen, laundry and the office. Four of the rooms were shared rooms. There is a large, mature garden with seating areas. The home does not provide nursing care. There were 16 people living in the home when we inspected, some of whom were living with dementia.

At the last inspection in April 2015, the service was rated good. At this inspection we found that the service remained good.

The service had a registered manager who was also the registered provider. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had received training in safeguarding adults, and had a good understanding of the signs of abuse and neglect.

Safe recruitment practices were followed and there were sufficient numbers of experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

People were supported by a staff team that received the training, supervision and support that they needed to provide people with care and support that met people's needs.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this in practice.

Improvements were planned to update aspects of the premises and make the design and layout of the home more suitable for people living with dementia.

People told us the food was tasty and that they were supported to have enough to eat and drink.

People told us they were supported by staff that were kind and caring and that they were treated with dignity and respect.

Care plans contained the information needed to support staff to provide people’s care in a manner that was responsive to their individual needs.

People were supported to take part in activities which they told us they enjoyed.

People spoke positively about how well organised and managed the service was.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service and to ensure people were receiving appropriate support.

We found that care plans contained details of the aims and objectives to maintain levels of independence and instructions for staff to continue to give time to people so that they felt comfortable at the home. Daily care notes were updated with the care given and details of the moods and feelings of the people living at the home. One relative we spoke with said: “I visit most days and I know that my relative is well cared for. I am relaxed and very confident that the care I see when I am here continues when I am not here”.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. We saw a copy of the menu which was nutritionally balanced and varied with two choices of meal each day. The registered manager told us that some people had asked for different meals to be added to the menu. One person who used the service told us: “We are always given two choices of food at lunch time. There is other food available if I changed my mind”.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before care workers began work. We looked at the personnel records for four care workers. These confirmed that they had been interviewed, that references had been requested and that the provider had completed appropriate background checks before they started work at the home.

The registered manager told us how she ensured people were kept safe from harm or risk by undertaking regular audits. We saw that these audits included, for example medication, the environment and food hygiene. The registered manager said that any areas identified as needing improvement would be discussed at the staff team meetings and plans put in place to improve the service.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We used SOFI in this inspection because Thornfield Care Home provides a service for people with dementia and many of the people using the service were not able to provide direct feedback to us about their experiences.

During the observations we saw staff interacting with people in a friendly and respectful manner. Staff took the time to respond to questions and to ask people their preferences. Staff helped people to make decisions about activities that were taking place, for example, asking people whether they wanted to go out to the garden for a walk, taking time to discuss a magazine article with one person, responding to questions and supporting people to make choices about drinks and snacks. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and communicated with people in different ways. Staff responded to requests for support, for example, to go to the toilet and to fix a hearing aid.

During the visit we spoke directly with two people who used the service. Both said they were well treated by the staff and that they were happy at the home. One person said they received “excellent care”. Another person told us “staff know what they’re doing and have the right skills”. Both people we spoke with said they were aware of the home’s complaints procedures and confident that any concerns they had would be resolved by the provider.

During this visit we spoke with three people who live at the home, the service providers and two members of staff. Many of the people using the service were not able to verbally communicate with us. We therefore spent time during our visit observing the care and support being given and how staff interacted with people.

Two people we spoke with told us that they did feel that they were involved in their care. They said that their families were also involved and that they were confident that the provider was aware of their wishes. They said that they felt safe and secure in the home and gave positive feedback about the staff. We observed staff talking to people and asking them about their needs. Staff spoke to people in a respectful manner and listened and responded to what they said.

People we spoke with said that staff were respectful and polite. We were told how the service encouraged and supported people’s autonomy and independence as much as possible. During our visit people were observed being spoken with and supported in a friendly and respectful manner. They told us they were getting the care and support they needed and that staff treated them well. Staff were “always ready to help” and responded quickly if they asked for assistance.

People said that the food provided was good and there was always plenty to eat and drink. They said that they could have an alternative meal to the main menu if they wished. Visitors were always made to feel welcome.

People told us that they felt safe and were well cared for in the home. They felt that the staff were caring and had the qualities and skills to perform their work well. They told us that the service providers were “approachable and kind”. They said that they could raise any concerns and were confident they would be responded to appropriately.