CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Priors House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found safe, effective care and exceptional leadership, while some authorisations for restrictions on people’s liberty were awaiting renewal.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 12 and 16 October 2023. Inspectors reviewed information from before the visit, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care plans, medicines records, daily records, audits and recruitment files.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective, and Outstanding for Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient, care plans reflected people’s needs, and staff worked well with health professionals.
The strongest findings were about leadership and culture. Staff were described as caring and committed to helping people live meaningful lives. The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection in 2019 to Outstanding.
Positive staff culture
Staff were proud of their work and supported people as individuals. Inspectors found an inclusive culture where people and staff were valued.
“There was an inclusive culture where everybody was valued.” from the report
Meaningful lives
Staff helped people maintain relationships, revisit important places and try activities that mattered to them. The report describes several positive personal outcomes.
“People were supported to live meaningful lives with significantly positive personal outcomes.” from the report
Safe care
People felt safe, risks were identified and staff knew how to respond. Inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment practices.
“People felt safe living at Priors House.” from the report
Strong improvement systems
The home used audits, action plans and reviews of incidents to improve care. Staff were encouraged to be open about mistakes and learn from them.
“There was a strong culture of learning from incidents and individual mistakes and sharing information with the team.” from the report
As-required medicine guidance
minorInspectors found that guidance for some as-required medicines was basic and not sufficiently personalised. The home acted on this feedback during the inspection.
“We gave feedback to the registered manager that these guidelines would benefit from more person-centred and detailed information.” from the report
Authorisations awaiting renewal
needs fixingSome authorisations relating to restrictions on people’s liberty had expired and were awaiting renewal. The report says this was linked to significant delays by the authorising body, and the home was tracking the applications.
“Some people's DOLs had expired and were awaiting renewal due to significant delays in processing DOLs applications and renewals by the authorising body.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure authorisations for restrictions on people’s liberty are renewed promptly when they expire?
- 02What changes were made to the guidance for as-required medicines after the inspection?
- 03How do you maintain enough experienced staff when there is unexpected absence or when newer staff are working?
- 04How are people with skin damage, reduced mobility or other clinical risks supported and monitored?
- 05How will you keep families informed about changes in health, accidents, injuries or safeguarding concerns?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 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, December 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found exceptionally personalised support, with some medicines and food-and-fluid recording issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 October 2019. Three inspectors and a specialist nurse spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also checked care records, medicines, complaints, activities, audits and other management records.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring support, and for being well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staffing levels were considered safe, staff were trained, and people received support with their health, eating, drinking and personal care.
Responsive care was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found that staff understood people's histories, interests and wishes, and helped them maintain relationships and take part in meaningful activities. However, some pain relief patch records and food and fluid records were not consistently complete or accurate. The provider was asked to improve these areas, but no regulation was breached.
Personalised activities
Staff used people's life histories and interests to create meaningful activities and help them achieve personal wishes. Inspectors found this was a key strength.
“Activities, engagement and personalising support towards people's interests was a key strength of the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring and approachable. Inspectors saw staff supporting people gently, without rushing them, while maintaining dignity.
“When supporting people, we saw staff worked at people's pace so people did not feel rushed.” from the report
Safe staffing
People and staff said there were enough staff. Inspectors saw staff checking on people, talking with them and providing support when needed.
“Safe staffing levels across the home ensured people received support when needed.” from the report
End of life support
People's known wishes for end of life care were followed. Relatives were supported with care planning and with information after a death.
“People's wishes in how they wanted to be cared for, where known and followed.” from the report
Pain relief patch records
needs fixingSome pain relief patches were not always applied in line with the manufacturer's guidance. Records did not always show where the previous patch had been applied.
“However, some patch medicines were not always applied in line with manufacturers guidelines, or records kept to show where they were last applied.” from the report
Food and fluid records
needs fixingFood and fluid charts were not always completed accurately. The issue had been found in earlier audits but continued, and some daily checks were not recorded.
“Incomplete food and fluid recording had been identified through previous audits but continued.” from the report
Audit follow-through
minorSome audits identified problems, but there was limited evidence showing what action had been taken. This meant some known recording issues were still present.
“For some checks, there was limited evidence to show us, what actions had been taken when improvements had been identified.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure pain relief patches are applied according to the manufacturer's guidance?
- 02How do you record where each pain relief patch was last applied?
- 03How do you check that food and fluid records are complete and accurate every day?
- 04What action was taken after the inspection to address the recording problems found in earlier audits?
- 05How will you tailor activities and support to my relative's interests, history and wishes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the home, care and management systems assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 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 Priors House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Outstanding.
- December 2023Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 June 2014.
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 Warwickshire
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“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.