CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Prideaux Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm and risks were assessed and managed. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff received relevant training and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Mental capacity and best-interest decisions were considered.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described and observed as kind, caring and respectful. People were involved in choices about their daily lives, care and personal preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, wishes, communication needs and preferences. Activities were being developed, but some people wanted more opportunities and activities better suited to their interests.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had experienced management and staffing changes. Record keeping, formal feedback systems, care review records and some medicine checks needed improvement, and there was no registered manager in post.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Prideaux Manor was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the home needed to improve leadership and records.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 29 and 30 June 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, training records and quality checks.
People were found to be safe. Staff knew people well, treated them kindly and understood their care needs. The home was clean, had enough staff and had safe systems for medicines, safeguarding and infection control.
The main weaknesses were in how the home was run and documented. Some care and oral hygiene had not always been recorded, medicine temperatures were not always recorded, and not all staff had completed medicine competency checks. There was also no registered manager at the time.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, meaning the home needed more time to make its management systems and person-centred approach consistent.
People felt safe
Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding and risks, and people had individual plans for risks such as falls, diabetes and pressure sores.
“People were supported safely by staff that knew them well.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives were positive about staff. Inspectors saw staff adapting their approach to individuals and respecting privacy, dignity, equality and personal choices.
“They seem very professional, incredibly patient all of them and very caring from what I can see.” from the report
Good assessment and training
People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff received induction, relevant training, supervision and competency checks in many areas.
“People's needs were holistically assessed, and staff considered each person's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how people communicated and what support they needed with aids such as glasses and hearing aids. Information was provided in accessible formats when needed.
“People's care plans gave clear guidance on how best to communicate with people.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome support, including help getting out of bed and oral hygiene, was not consistently recorded. Records of care reviews with relatives were also missing.
“Improvements were needed to some aspects of record keeping.” from the report
Medicine checks needed strengthening
needs fixingMedicine storage temperatures were not always recorded, and some staff who gave medicines had not yet had competency checks.
“Although medicines were managed safely, we identified gaps on the temperature recording of the medicine room and the medicine fridge.” from the report
Management stability
needs fixingThere had been several management and staffing changes, and no registered manager was in post. The provider was still working to embed a consistent, person-centred culture.
“There had been multiple changes in management and staffing which had affected consistency and morale of staff.” from the report
Activities were still developing
minorSome people wanted more activities and more exercise. Inspectors found that activities were not always linked to people's individual interests.
“Whilst there were some activities offered to people, these were not always specific to people's interests.” from the report
- 01Who is the registered manager now, and how are management and staffing changes being handled?
- 02How do you now make sure all care, oral hygiene and care-plan reviews are recorded accurately?
- 03How often are medicine room and fridge temperatures checked, and have all staff who give medicines completed competency checks?
- 04What activities and exercise are now available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and mobility?
- 05How can residents and relatives give feedback, and how is the home recording the action taken?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous provider's rating was Requires Improvement, published on 12 March 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 2022 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted inspection on 7 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, managed testing and admissions, kept the premises clean and had an up-to-date infection control policy. People could have unlimited visitors in line with government guidance, alongside checks such as lateral flow tests and temperature checks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full quality rating for the service or separate ratings for all five areas of care.
Family visiting
People could have unlimited visitors in line with government guidance. The home also supported phone and video calls with loved ones.
“People were supported to have visits from their friends and family.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff wore PPE in line with guidance and had training on putting it on and taking it off safely. PPE stations and foot-operated bins were available throughout the home.
“Staff were wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with government guidance.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Refurbishment included easier-to-clean flooring, furniture and radiator covers.
“The home was clean and hygienic. The provider was in the process of an extensive refurbishment of the home.” from the report
Monitoring infection risks
The home used COVID-19 risk assessments, health questionnaires, hand hygiene audits and regular infection control audits. Actions had timeframes and named responsibilities.
“Regular infection control audits were completed, and actions identified with timeframes and responsibilities for completion.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What progress has been made with the extensive refurbishment since the inspection?
- 02How are COVID-19-related staffing pressures being managed now, and have they affected people's care?
- 03How are infection control audit actions tracked and checked until they are completed?
- 04What visiting checks are currently required, including testing, temperature checks and advance notice?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 2022 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 Prideaux Manor
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 May 2021.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East 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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.