CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Priority Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found medicines were not always managed safely and some risks were not properly reduced. Staffing, recruitment checks, infection control and care records showed areas of improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People's needs, preferences and communication needs were recorded and reviewed. People were supported with activities, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home's systems did not reliably identify or address risks, particularly medicines risks. The manager was open to feedback, but governance systems remained ineffective.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Priority Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found improved care planning and staffing, but medicines safety and management oversight still put people at risk.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 12 April 2023. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had enough staff and care plans were generally personalised and kept up to date. People and relatives generally said they felt safe, and the home responded well to complaints and people's social needs.
There were serious gaps in medicines management. Some medicines were not recorded or administered safely, and the home's own audits had not found these problems. The provider remained in breach of Regulation 12 and Regulation 17.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. Safe improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement, and Responsive improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Well-led remained Requires Improvement, and this was the second consecutive inspection with breaches.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were appropriate and recruitment checks were completed. The home was no longer in breach of the previous recruitment regulation.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care records
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and preferences. They were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“People received care and support which reflected their needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities and to maintain contact with relatives and friends.
“People were supported to take part in activities and we saw photographs of recent events that people had participated in.” from the report
Open to feedback
The manager was receptive to the inspectors' feedback and took immediate action on some concerns raised during the visit.
“The provider was receptive to our feedback and took action to address our concerns.” from the report
Medicines were not consistently safe
seriousInspectors found problems with hidden medicines, recording times for time-sensitive medicines, rotating medicine patches and documenting variable doses. This was a breach and created a risk of harm.
“Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate medicine were safely and effectively managed.” from the report
Management checks missed risks
seriousThe home's audits did not identify the medicines problems. Inspectors said the systems for monitoring and reducing risks were not effective.
“Audits had failed to identify the inconsistencies we found with the safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Safeguarding records
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were reviewed, but records did not always show whether they had been assessed as safeguarding concerns. Inspectors made a recommendation for improved practice.
“Records did not always show if such accidents and incidents had been routinely assessed as safeguarding concerns.” from the report
PPE practice
minorInspectors were only somewhat assured that personal protective equipment was being used safely. They saw a staff member wearing the same PPE when serving food and taking someone to the toilet.
“We observed staff wearing PPE when serving food and not changing this when taking one person to the toilet.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure medicines hidden in food or drink have safe instructions from an appropriate healthcare professional?
- 02How do you now record administration times for time-sensitive medicines and check that the correct intervals are followed?
- 03How are medicine patches rotated and checked against the manufacturer's instructions?
- 04How often are medicines audits completed, and how do you make sure they identify and correct problems?
- 05How do you assess accidents and incidents for possible safeguarding concerns and record the decision?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 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 2022
Rated Requires Improvement, with an Inadequate safe rating; inspectors found kind care but serious problems with medicines, risk management and recruitment.
This was the home's first inspection. Inspectors visited on 14 and 22 September 2022, with inspection activity continuing until 30 September. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The main safety concerns were serious. Risks were not always assessed or managed, medicines were not managed safely, and recruitment checks were not robust. Care records were also missing important information. The home had enough staff, and its environment and infection control arrangements were largely satisfactory.
People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and responsive. Inspectors rated the home Good for effective and caring care. Activities, food, healthcare support and the home environment were also positive.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently meeting required standards. CQC found breaches of regulations about safe care and treatment, good governance, and fit and proper staff. The provider gave CQC action plans, and CQC said it would monitor progress.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff respond with warmth, reassurance and respect.
“People were well treated by staff who supported them with warmth and compassion.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staffing levels were reviewed using a dependency tool.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People enjoyed the meals and received support to eat and drink. The home also helped people access healthcare services.
“Staff provided good support and made sure people had plenty to eat and drink.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People took part in a wide range of activities and events. The home also supported visits and contact with family and friends.
“The activity organiser was enthusiastic and encouraging and people clearly enjoyed spending time with them.” from the report
Environment
The home was spacious and maintained to a high standard, with adaptations intended to support people living with dementia.
“The home was designed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines were unsafe
seriousMedicines were not always stored or given safely. Records showed incorrect administration times and doses given too close together.
“Medicines were not managed safely.” from the report
Risks were not controlled
seriousImportant risks, including pressure damage, bed rails, falls and low weight, were not always assessed, recorded or reviewed. This left people at risk of harm.
“The lack of robust risk management processes meant people were not protected from harm or injury.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome staff files did not contain suitable references, consistent employment information or clear evidence of right-to-work checks.
“Recruitment processes were not robust as checks to establish a candidate's fitness for the role were not suitable and sufficient.” from the report
Incomplete care plans
needs fixingSome care records contained very little information or did not explain how staff should support people with particular needs, including distress at night.
“People's care records did not provide sufficient information to inform staff about people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Weak checks by management
seriousAudits and provider visits did not identify the problems found by inspectors. Records were incomplete, and some safeguarding and serious injury notifications were submitted late.
“Quality audits were not effective in identifying or securing improvements.” from the report
PPE on first visit
minorInspectors saw staff not wearing masks properly on the first day. This had been addressed by the second visit.
“On the first day we saw staff were not wearing masks properly.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make medicines safer, including storage, cream administration, 'as required' medicines and administration records?
- 02How are risks from pressure damage, bed rails, falls and low weight assessed and reviewed now?
- 03How do you check that every person's care plan contains current, detailed guidance for their needs and preferences?
- 04What new audits or management checks are in place to identify safety and record-keeping problems?
- 05How do you make sure all staff recruitment files contain the required references, employment history and right-to-work evidence?
This was an unannounced first full inspection of the newly registered care home, covering all five key questions; inspection activity ran from 14 to 30 September 2022, with visits on 14 and 22 September. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 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 Priority Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2022Requires improvementSafe: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 July 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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.