CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Priory House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, staffing arrangements, recruitment checks and medicines systems were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supervision, and people were supported with healthcare, nutrition and activities that reflected their needs and interests.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness and respect. Inspectors saw staff explain what they were doing, ask for people's views and promote independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences, interests and communication needs. Support could change during the day depending on how people felt.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear staffing arrangements, management checks and regular reviews. Relatives and staff were involved in planning and improving care.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 08 October 2019. One inspector spoke with all three people living in the home, a relative, managers and a staff member. The inspector also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Staff understood people's needs, medicines were given as prescribed, and there were enough staff on duty. People had access to healthcare, activities and support suited to their interests.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 03 April 2017.
Person-centred support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, life histories and interests. Staff adjusted daily plans to reflect how people felt.
“We have a plan agreed with the person for each day but this is subject to change on the day depending upon the persons feelings.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and unhurried. Inspectors observed staff supporting choice and dignity.
“We observed staff listen to and support the person to make choices.” from the report
Safety and medicines
Staff had safeguarding and medicines training. Risk plans were in place, recruitment checks were completed and medicines records showed medicines were given as prescribed.
“Peoples medication administration records (MAR) showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, communicate their wishes and develop skills. They could take part in activities together or pursue individual interests.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and record my relative's individual needs, preferences and communication methods?
- 02What training and supervision will staff have for my relative's health conditions and support needs?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in care reviews and decisions about support?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given correctly and that any changes are reviewed with health professionals?
- 05What activities and opportunities for independence would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 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, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some inconsistency in supporting important decisions.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 December 2016. One inspector observed care, spoke with people and staff, reviewed care plans, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks. Staff records were reviewed at the organisation's regional office on 23 February 2017.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk assessments and safe medicines support. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and supported their choices, activities, healthcare and family relationships.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This means the inspectors found the service met the relevant standards at the time of the inspection. The previous inspection in January 2014 had found the service compliant in all areas.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's care plans, preferences and behavioural needs. Inspectors saw relaxed and comfortable relationships between people and staff.
“Staff demonstrated that they knew people well and delivered care in accordance with their preferences and wishes.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
The home was fully staffed during the inspection, with regular staff who understood people's needs. Recruitment checks and induction arrangements were in place.
“During the inspection we saw that there were sufficient staff available to keep people safe from harm and meet their needs” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity, asked for consent and supported them to have a say in their daily lives.
“Staff were kind and respectful when providing care.” from the report
Meaningful activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, use the local community and keep in contact with family and friends.
“Staff went above and beyond to support people to maintain meaningful relationships and to regularly communicate with their extended family.” from the report
Active quality monitoring
The management team used audits, meetings and action plans to identify and address issues. The report said identified concerns were dealt with promptly.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.” from the report
Decision-making was not consistent
needs fixingInspectors said people were not always able to make important decisions about their care and daily lives. The report also said the service had followed the Mental Capacity Act where people lacked capacity, so families should ask how this is handled in practice.
“People living in the service were not consistently able to make important decisions about their care and how they lived their daily lives.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative is supported to make important decisions about their care and daily life?
- 02How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded and reviewed?
- 03How will you make sure care plans and risk assessments stay up to date when a person's needs change?
- 04How are staff trained and checked to support people with complex behavioural needs?
- 05How do you monitor medicines records and act when an audit identifies a problem?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions; staff records were also reviewed at the organisation's regional office on 23 February 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 2017 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 Priory House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014Inspected but not rated
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 September 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.