CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT St Wilfrid's Priory Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, risk assessment, staffing and medicines systems. The environment and equipment were safe and well maintained.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff worked with healthcare professionals, supported healthy eating and had relevant training and supervision.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. They knew people's histories, communication methods, choices and support needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and records were reviewed monthly or when needs changed. Activities and access to the community had improved since the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had approachable leadership, daily handovers and quality checks. Staff, people and relatives were encouraged to raise concerns and suggest improvements.
What inspectors found, May 2019
OSJCT St Wilfrid's Priory was rated Good overall, with kind personalised care and improved activities and community access.
The CQC carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 2 and 3 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with dignity, received personalised care and were supported by staff who knew their needs and preferences.
The home had safe systems for medicines, safeguarding, staffing and managing risks. People were supported with healthcare, nutrition, activities and end of life wishes. The Responsive rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection because activities and access to the community had improved.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as caring, compassionate and respectful. They spent time listening and understood how people communicated, including when people could not explain their needs verbally.
“People were supported by staff that were caring, compassionate and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was based on people's histories, preferences, communication needs and changing health needs. People and families were involved in care decisions where possible.
“People received person centred care and support based on their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Safe systems
Inspectors found good arrangements for safeguarding, risk management, staffing, medicines, infection control and learning from accidents and incidents.
“The environment and equipment was safe and well maintained.” from the report
Improved activities
The home had a full-time activities coordinator and offered a wider range of activities than at the previous inspection. The earlier concern about Responsive had improved to Good.
“We found things had improved and it was now rated as Good.” from the report
Good leadership
The management team used handovers, audits and action plans to monitor the service. Staff said they could raise concerns and that action was taken.
“A quality assurance system was in place to enable the registered manager to monitor and identify any shortfalls in the quality of the service people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently assess and review a new resident's care, communication needs and preferences?
- 02What activities are available now, and how can residents access the community if they want to?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels continue to match residents' changing needs?
- 04How are medicines checked, and what happens if there is a medicine error?
- 05How are families involved in best-interest decisions and discussions about end of life wishes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous Responsive rating of Requires Improvement had improved to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 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.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but activities and community access needed improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 8 and 9 September 2016. They observed care, spoke with people and staff, and checked care records, medicines, staff files, rotas, training, complaints and management records.
They found that people were safe and received effective, caring care. Staff understood people's risks, managed medicines safely, supported food and drink, and helped people access healthcare. Care plans were detailed and staff knew people well.
The main weakness was activities. Activities were limited when the activities co-ordinator was unavailable, and people could not easily reach the local town without support. The home was rated Good overall, but Requires Improvement for Responsive.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw warm relationships, patience and respect for people's privacy and choices.
“People were looked after by kind and caring staff who knew them well.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, checked and administered by trained staff. Records and expiry dates were checked regularly.
“People's medicines were managed so they received them safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's histories, preferences and support needs. Staff used this information and discussed people's needs at handovers.
“Care plans were detailed and comprehensive and provided advice and guidance on how people wished to be supported and cared for.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered choices, special diets were catered for, and advice was obtained from healthcare professionals when needed.
“People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and were encouraged to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Open management
The home asked people, relatives and staff for feedback. Audits covered areas such as medicines, care plans, complaints and staffing.
“A range of audits was in place to identify any areas that required improvement.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingActivities were restricted for several weeks while the activities co-ordinator was unavailable. The report recommended reviewing the hours and staff allocated to activities.
“However, in the absence of the activities co-ordinator, organised activities for people were limited.” from the report
- 01What regular activities are available now, including at weekends, and how are they matched to each person's interests?
- 02How do you support residents with limited mobility to go into the town or attend community activities?
- 03Has the new lift been completed and is it working reliably?
- 04How do you make sure afternoon staffing is sufficient when medicines, supper and helping people to bed happen at the same time?
- 05How do you record and check staff supervision meetings so that they take place as planned?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, using observations, conversations and checks of care, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 2016 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 OSJCT St Wilfrid's Priory Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at OSJCT St Wilfrid's Priory Care Home →
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at OSJCT St Wilfrid's Priory Care Home →
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 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.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.