CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Harry Priestley House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
Inspectors visited the home on 5 November 2020. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak.
They found a visitors pod to support visits with social distancing. Risk assessments were detailed and regularly updated. People and staff were being tested for COVID-19, and two infection control leads had extra duties.
Inspectors were assured about visiting arrangements, shielding, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning, outbreak management and the infection control policy. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safer visiting
The home created a visitors pod so people could see visitors while following social distancing measures.
“The provider had created a visitors pod where visits could take place whilst adhering to social distancing measures.” from the report
Detailed risk reviews
Inspectors found that infection-related risk assessments were clear, detailed and kept up to date with government guidance.
“Risk assessments were clear and well detailed, they had been regularly reviewed and updated following the latest government guidance.” from the report
Regular testing
The home was using the government testing scheme for people living there and staff.
“The service was accessing the government testing scheme, which meant people who used the service and staff were being tested for COVID-19 on a regular basis.” from the report
Infection control leads
Two staff members had additional duties focused on preventing the spread of infection.
“The service had two infection control leads in the service who had additional duties to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently arranged, and is the visitors pod still available if needed?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19 or other infections now?
- 03Who are the current infection control leads, and what extra duties do they carry out?
- 04How are infection control risk assessments reviewed when government guidance changes?
- 05What arrangements are in place to manage a new infection outbreak?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the other key questions were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2020 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.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Harry Priestley House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staffing arrangements being strengthened.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 3 September 2018. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed daily care and looked at care files, staff records, medicines and management checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, detailed care plans and good support with health, food, activities and independence.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, relationships, activities and community involvement. The home had a positive management culture, with audits and feedback used to improve care.
The home had recently reviewed staffing because people's needs were increasing. Two extra care workers had been agreed, and regular agency workers were being used until they were employed. Inspectors still found staffing levels safe at the time of the visit.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm relationships and staff spending unhurried, individual time with people. Privacy, dignity and personal preferences were respected.
“We saw people and staff had lots of laughter together and had formed warm, caring relationships with each other.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, goals, health needs and preferences. Staff adapted support as people's needs and wishes changed.
“Care plans reflected people's physical, mental, social and emotional needs.” from the report
Good health support
Staff monitored health needs and supported people to attend appointments. Records included health action plans and guidance for specific conditions.
“People's health needs were monitored effectively and they were supported to access the health care services they needed.” from the report
Strong management
The manager was well regarded and knew people's needs. Audits, meetings, surveys and feedback were used to identify and act on improvements.
“Audits were carried out to identify how the service could improve and the registered manager had an on-going improvement plan for the service.” from the report
Staffing was being increased
minorPeople's needs were increasing, so two extra care workers had been agreed. Until those workers were employed, the home relied on regular agency workers to maintain staffing numbers.
“Until the new care workers were employed the service was using regular agency workers to ensure safe staffing numbers were maintained.” from the report
- 01Have the two additional care workers now been employed, and how often are agency workers currently used?
- 02How will you make sure staffing levels remain suitable as people's care and support needs increase?
- 03How will you support my relative's preferred activities, time in the community and relationships with family?
- 04How do you record and review my relative's health needs, appointments and any changes in their care?
- 05How will my relative be involved in decisions about their care, food, daily routines and future plans?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the service; it was the first comprehensive inspection under the new registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 2018 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.
Every inspection of Harry Priestley House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 September 2017.
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.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.