Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Ditton Priors Care Centre

Goodpublished 14 December 2023, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines support, safe recruitment checks and effective infection control.
Effective?
Good
This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
Caring?
Good
This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
Responsive?
Good
This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
Well-led?
Good
Inspectors found effective quality checks, improved record keeping and good links with local health professionals. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2023

Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was better led, after a focused check of records.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 15 and 20 November 2023. It followed concerns about how records were managed. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, and also checked infection prevention and control.

Inspectors spoke with 3 people and 6 staff members. They observed care, reviewed 4 care plans, medicines records and management documents, and checked the recruitment of 2 staff members.

The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were given safely and infection control was effective. They found no concerns about record management at this inspection.

The overall rating stayed Good. The other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection because they were not inspected this time. Well-led improved from Requires Improvement to Good.

What inspectors praised
  • Protection from abuse

    Staff had been trained to recognise abuse and knew how to report concerns. The home had systems for passing concerns to the appropriate agencies.

    “People were protected from the risk of abuse and ill treatment as staff members had received training on how to recognise and respond to concerns.” from the report
  • Risk management

    Care risks such as skin damage, diet and mobility had been assessed. Staff understood these risks and how to reduce harm.

    “Staff members knew the risks associated with people's care and support and knew how to keep people safe whilst providing assistance.” from the report
  • Medicines and infection control

    Staff were trained and assessed before giving medicines. Inspectors also found regular cleaning and suitable infection control training.

    “People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
  • Improved leadership

    The rating for Well-led improved to Good. Inspectors found effective monitoring and that the provider had changed record keeping after feedback.

    “The provider had acted on feedback and revised their record keeping to ensure the records accurately reflected the care given.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Manager registration

    minor

    There was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A manager had been appointed and was going through the registration process.

    “At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
  • Satisfaction survey delay

    minor

    Residents and relatives could share views in meetings, but the yearly survey for 2022 to 2023 had not yet been completed.

    “although the survey for the year 2022 to 2023 had yet to be completed.” from the report
  • Radiator covers being refitted

    needs fixing

    The home was refitting radiator covers during the inspection to reduce the risk of burns.

    “At the inspection the provider was refitting radiator covers to ensure these were safe and protected people from the risk of burns.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Has the manager now completed the registration process with the CQC?
  2. 02Has the 2022 to 2023 resident and relative satisfaction survey now been completed, and what did it show?
  3. 03Have all radiator covers been refitted, and how are checks made that they remain safe?
  4. 04How does the home check that care records accurately reflect the care provided?
  5. 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not reviewed in this inspection?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other three question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, April 2019

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but management checks needed improvement.

This was an unannounced inspection on 19 March 2019. One inspector reviewed records, observed care in communal areas, and spoke with people, relatives were not specifically mentioned as spoken with, managers and staff.

The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly, supported with their medicines and helped to take part in activities.

Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Management changes had affected the home, and some audits were missed or completed late. Staffing sometimes fell below the assessed level, although people and staff said this had not adversely affected care.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe care and medicines

    Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff understood how to reduce harm, and medicines were administered and recorded safely.

    “People received their medicines as prescribed from trained and competent staff.” from the report
  • Kind and reassuring staff

    Staff knew people well and responded quickly when people became upset or anxious. People said they felt respected and supported.

    “Staff were kind, respectful and responsive towards people.” from the report
  • Activities improved

    Activities had become more tailored to people's interests. Staff had more time to talk with people and support quieter, individual activities.

    “People had access to activities, interests and hobbies that were now more tailored to individual needs and wishes.” from the report
  • Staff training

    Staff said their training gave them the skills needed to support people, including people with dementia and more complex health conditions.

    “Staff received training to ensure that they were suitably skilled to work with the people living at the home.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Missed or late quality checks

    needs fixing

    Some audits were not completed because the manager was covering other work. This reduced the home's oversight of whether improvements and delegated tasks had been completed.

    “Audits were not always completed at the right times.” from the report
  • Staffing sometimes below plan

    needs fixing

    Staff numbers sometimes fell below the level identified by the home's dependency assessment. The manager agreed to consider agency staff, as covering shifts reduced time for management oversight.

    “However, at times, those staff levels were not always kept to.” from the report
  • Care plans lacked some detail

    needs fixing

    Staff knew people's histories, behaviours and the approaches that helped them, but this information was not always recorded. Inspectors recommended adding it to care plans, especially for new or agency staff.

    “Approaches that worked well, were not always recorded.” from the report
  • Empty hand sanitisers

    minor

    Several ground-floor hand sanitisers were empty during the visit. The manager said they would be refilled.

    “During our visit, a number of ground floor hand sanitisers were empty.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now make sure all quality audits are completed on time, and who checks the results?
  2. 02What happens when staffing falls below the assessed level, and when would agency staff be used?
  3. 03How have you updated care plans to record the approaches that work best for each person?
  4. 04How do you make sure new or agency staff understand each person's preferences, history and support needs?
  5. 05What progress has been made with the management changes and improvement plans since this inspection?

This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC question areas; the home was inspected across its premises, care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 2019 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 Ditton Priors Care Centre

4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Ditton Priors Care Centre →

  2. April 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Ditton Priors Care Centre →

  3. August 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2010.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire

These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.

Most charge £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.

See live-in carers near ShropshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.