Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by GN Care Homes

Thornton House Residential Home

94 Chester Road, Childer Thornton, Ellesmere Port, CH66 1QL

Requires improvementpublished 22 July 2026, last month

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety and management failures despite improvements in staffing, medicines and safeguarding.

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 27 November, 29 November and 6 December 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, staff files, policies and other records, and observed care.

The overall rating remained Inadequate. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Requires Improvement. The home was still not managing risks properly, and its checks and records were not reliable.

There were improvements. Staffing was sufficient, medicines were managed safely, safeguarding arrangements had improved, and some parts of the building had been refurbished. Relatives and professionals also said communication and care had improved under the new manager.

The home remained in breach of Regulation 12 and Regulation 17. CQC will request an action plan, work with the local authority and continue monitoring the home. Special measures mean CQC will usually re-inspect within six months and may take action to stop the home operating if there is not enough improvement.

What inspectors praised
  • Staffing

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The provider had improved how it assessed staffing levels.

    There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet the needs of the people supported.from the report
  • Medicines

    Medicines records were accurate and medicines were stored safely. Staff who gave medicines had training and competency checks.

    Medicines were managed safely by trained and competent staff.from the report
  • Safeguarding

    Safeguarding systems had improved. Suspected abuse was reported and acted on promptly, and staff knew how to raise concerns.

    When suspected abuse had been identified, prompt and appropriate action had been taken to safeguard people.from the report
  • Food and healthcare

    People's nutritional needs and preferences were assessed. The chef understood individual dietary needs, and people were supported to access healthcare professionals.

    The chef was knowledgeable about people's individual needs and preferences as well as dietary requirements.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unsafe environment

    serious

    Inspectors found damaged and uncleanable surfaces, unsafe electrical work, trip hazards, poor laundry arrangements and other risks that had not been properly assessed or addressed.

    There were many examples of health and safety risks and poor practice the provider had failed to identify, mitigate, and addressfrom the report
  • Weak safety and quality checks

    serious

    Audits did not identify serious problems with bedding, care plans and the environment. The provider had also failed to act on some recommendations from professional bodies.

    Quality assurance systems were not robust. There were many examples where the provider had failed to identify audits were ineffective, and records were not accurate and complete.from the report
  • Care plans not up to date

    needs fixing

    Some care plans did not match people's current needs or the support being given. This could make it harder for staff to provide consistent care.

    Care plans had not always been updated when people's needs had changed so did not reflect their current needs.from the report
  • Poor bedding

    needs fixing

    Several beds had torn or threadbare sheets, and inspectors saw further damaged bedding later in the inspection. This did not promote people's dignity.

    On the first day of the inspection the sheets on 5 people's beds had holes in and another was thread bare.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What immediate action has been taken to remove the infection control and health and safety risks identified by inspectors?
  2. 02How are you now checking that care plans accurately reflect each person's current needs?
  3. 03How will you make sure agency staff receive care plans, risk assessments and guidance before they start work?
  4. 04What activities and one-to-one engagement are available for people who stay in their bedrooms or are not interested in group activities?
  5. 05What is the timetable for completing the outstanding refurbishment, furniture replacement and repairs?

This was an unannounced follow-up inspection of all five key questions, checking actions required after the previous Inadequate inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2023

Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks involving safeguarding, staffing, dignity, care planning and management.

Inspectors made unannounced visits on 14, 15, 17 and 20 March 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care and reviewed care records, staff files and management records.

The home was rated Inadequate in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that incidents were not always reported or investigated, staffing and training were not sufficient, and some people were at risk of harm.

Care plans and risk assessments were not consistently accurate or detailed. People were not always treated with dignity, offered choices or supported with their communication, food, drink and activities. The building also needed repair, refurbishment and clearer signage.

There were some positive findings. Medicines were managed safely, recruitment checks were completed and infection prevention arrangements were suitable. However, the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 3 August 2021.

What inspectors praised
  • Medicines

    Medicines were stored and recorded safely. Staff who administered medicines had training and competency checks.

    Medicine administration records (MARs) were accurate and up to date. All medicines, including controlled drugs, were stored safely.from the report
  • Recruitment

    The home completed appropriate checks before employing staff.

    Recruitment processes were safe. Appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure that only suitable people were employed.from the report
  • Infection control

    Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including the use of protective equipment and arrangements for outbreaks.

    We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.from the report
  • Dietary knowledge

    The chef understood people's individual dietary needs, preferences and requirements.

    The chef was knowledgeable about people's individual needs and preferences as well as dietary requirements.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Safeguarding failures

    serious

    People had come to harm and prompt action had not always been taken. Safeguarding alerts and incident reports were not consistently made, so lessons were not learned.

    People had come to harm and prompt and appropriate action had not been taken to safeguard people.from the report
  • Staffing and training

    serious

    There were not enough suitably trained and competent staff. Training did not cover important areas such as dementia care and positive behaviour support.

    There were insufficient numbers of suitably trained and competent staff employed to meet the needs of the people supported.from the report
  • Dignity and respect

    serious

    Some records used disrespectful language, and inspectors saw staff speaking to people in ways that were not always kind or person-centred. Relatives also said they sometimes provided personal care themselves.

    People were not always treated with dignity and respect. This was a breach of regulation 10(1) (Dignity and respect)from the report
  • Care plans and risk information

    serious

    Some care plans were inaccurate, unclear or out of date. People living with dementia did not have clear guidance for staff, increasing the risk of inappropriate support.

    People living with dementia did not have any clear plans or guidance in place to guide staff about how best to support people on their dementia journey.from the report
  • Building condition

    serious

    Communal areas, bedrooms and bathrooms needed refurbishment and repair. Lighting and signage did not fully support people living with dementia, and a bath lift had been out of service for an extended period.

    Premises and equipment were not always suitable for the purposes being used, and properly used and maintained.from the report
  • Activities and choice

    needs fixing

    Activities mainly involved loud music and films. People were not always offered a choice about where to spend time, and people in their bedrooms were not consistently offered one-to-one engagement.

    People who chose to spend time in their bedrooms were not offered any engagement. For example, 1:1 time, reminiscence or reading.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What safeguarding incidents have occurred since the inspection, and how were they reported, investigated and used to prevent further harm?
  2. 02How many staff are on each shift, and what dementia and positive behaviour support training have they completed?
  3. 03Which residents now have updated care plans and risk assessments, especially people living with dementia or showing behaviour that may challenge?
  4. 04What has been done to improve dignity, personal care, communication with relatives and people's access to activities?
  5. 05Which repairs and refurbishment work has been completed, including the bath lift, bedroom carpets, lighting, signage and bathrooms?

This was an unannounced full inspection covering all five key questions, the care provided and the premises, with infection prevention and control also checked. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Thornton House Residential Home

11 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.

  1. February 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingstayed Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Thornton House Residential Home

  2. November 2023Inadequatedown from Good
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Thornton House Residential Home

  3. August 2021Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. November 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. January 2019Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. April 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. November 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. February 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. August 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. March 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. December 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. April 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. January 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  15. March 2012

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 March 2012.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Nearby

Other care homes near Ellesmere Port

Rivacre House

Ellesmere Port, CH66 · 2.3 km
Good
Residential
Rated 8 years agocare home

Mayfields

Ellesmere Port, CH66 · 2.4 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home

The Vicarage

Ellesmere Port, CH66 · 2.9 km
Good
Residential
Rated 8 years agocare home

Kenneth House

Eastham, CH62 · 3.1 km
Good
Residential
Rated 3 months agocare home