CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Priestley Rose Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective systems for safeguarding, risk management, staffing, medicines and infection control. They noted that some individual incident records did not contain full details of investigations or the circumstances of incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection, although people and relatives spoke positively about staff and the care provided.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found robust quality checks, a positive culture, staff involvement and systems for acting on feedback. The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Priestley Rose Nursing Home rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring management, with some incident records needing more detail.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 and 12 July 2023. One inspector and a nurse specialist advisor visited the home. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good and well-led was rated Good. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs and infection control was effective.
The inspection was prompted partly by an incident after which a person died. CQC said it did not examine the circumstances of that incident because it remained under further investigation. It found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from the concern about healthcare emergencies.
The previous overall rating was Good in 2019. The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors found effective quality checks and a positive culture, although some incident records did not contain enough detail and the building showed some wear and tear.
Managing risks
Inspectors found that people's health and safety risks were assessed and managed. Staff knew people's needs, including dietary and choking risks.
“People were protected from the risk of harm through effective systems which assessed, monitored and mitigated risks to people's health, safety and welfare.” from the report
Staffing
The home had enough staff to support people in a timely way. The established staff team knew people well.
“Staffing levels were maintained to meet people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered as prescribed and stored and labelled correctly. Staff had training and competency checks.
“Records showed medicines were administered as prescribed and we observed they were stored, monitored and labelled correctly.” from the report
Management oversight
The home had quality audits, action plans and systems for using feedback to improve care. The well-led rating improved to Good.
“Robust systems and processes were in place to oversee the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable measures for preventing and managing infections, including safe use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Incident records
needs fixingSome individual records did not fully explain the investigation or what had led to an incident or injury. The manager responded to this feedback during the inspection.
“However, individual incident records did not always contain full details about the investigation carried out by the registered manager and the circumstances leading to the incident or injury.” from the report
Wear and tear
minorInspectors saw some wear and tear around the home. The provider had identified this and had plans for improvements.
“Whilst there were some signs of wear and tear throughout the home, this had been identified by the provider and plans were underway to make improvements.” from the report
- 01How are accidents and incidents investigated, and how will you ensure the records contain all the details CQC said were sometimes missing?
- 02What is the current position of the further CQC investigation into the incident mentioned in the report?
- 03Which areas of the home have been refurbished since the inspection, and what work is still planned?
- 04How will you assess and manage my relative's specific health, dietary, choking or skin-care risks?
- 05How will you keep my family informed if my relative needs healthcare support or an emergency response?
This was a focused inspection prompted by concerns about healthcare emergencies and covering Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 August 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.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Priestley Rose Nursing Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in management checks and record keeping.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit over two days. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, had staff who understood their needs, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, down from Good at the previous inspection. Audits had not found problems in some risk assessments, records about shared bedrooms and records of fluids that people had declined. The home had plans to improve its records, including introducing electronic care records.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely and saw that call bells were answered without long waits. Recruitment checks included Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“There were sufficient staff available to support people safely.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given safely and without rushing. The medicines records checked by inspectors had no gaps.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) we sampled were clearly completed with no gaps.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors observed friendly interactions and found that privacy, dignity and personal choices were respected.
“During the inspection, we spent time in communal areas observing kind and friendly interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Activities and personalised support
People's likes, dislikes and communication needs were recorded. Inspectors saw a range of activities and staff also visited people who preferred to stay in their bedrooms.
“During the inspection visit we saw many different activities occurring including music and movement and gentle exercise sessions.” from the report
Complaints were investigated
People said they could complain, and the complaints checked by inspectors had been investigated with the outcomes recorded.
“They had all been investigated and outcomes recorded.” from the report
Management checks missed record gaps
needs fixingAudits did not identify that some records needed improvement. This included risk assessments and records explaining the process for people sharing bedrooms.
“Audits undertaken had failed to identify that improvement was needed to some records, for example the process followed regarding sharing of bedrooms and details in some risk assessments.” from the report
Fluid monitoring records
needs fixingAlthough staff encouraged people to drink, records did not always show when fluids had been encouraged and declined. Monitoring also needed to check whether action was taken when people were not drinking enough.
“Monitoring of fluid records needed to improve to check that action had been taken where people were declining sufficient fluid.” from the report
Shared-bedroom records
needs fixingSome people shared bedrooms, and the home needed to ensure records fully showed how capacity and best interests had been considered.
“Improvement was needed to ensure records fully reflected the process.” from the report
- 01Have the planned electronic care records been introduced, and have they improved the accuracy of care and fluid records?
- 02How do you now audit risk assessments to make sure they contain enough detail?
- 03How are decisions about shared bedrooms recorded, including people's consent, capacity and best interests?
- 04How do staff record and respond when someone drinks less than they need or declines fluids?
- 05What evidence can you show that the well-led rating has improved since this inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating and all five question ratings were compared with the inspection published on 22 March 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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.
Every inspection of Priestley Rose Nursing Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.