CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Priory Lodge
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found kind staff but serious safety, care planning and management weaknesses.
Inspectors made an unannounced comprehensive inspection over 9, 11 and 16 October 2023. They spoke with people, staff and managers, and checked care records, recruitment, training, medicines and quality systems.
They found serious shortfalls in safety and leadership. Risk plans did not give staff enough guidance, fire safety and infection control needed strengthening, incidents were not always reported or investigated properly, and staff lacked important mental health and behaviour support training.
Staff were kind and the home had a friendly atmosphere. However, care plans were not personalised enough and people were not always involved in decisions about their care. The overall rating fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. The home is in special measures.
Kind staff
Inspectors found staff were friendly and treated people kindly.
“Staff were friendly and approachable and treated people kindly.” from the report
Welcoming atmosphere
People inspectors spoke with were happy living at the home, and the atmosphere was described as friendly.
“People we spoke with were happy living at the service. The atmosphere within the home was friendly and welcoming.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People were supported to attend appointments with healthcare professionals, including specialist clinics and psychiatrists.
“People were supported to attend appointments with other healthcare professionals such as specialist clinics and psychiatrists.” from the report
Some independence
Some people could go out independently, and some had keys to their rooms.
“Some people went out into the community independently.” from the report
Unsafe risk management
seriousRisk assessments did not give staff enough detail about how to respond to distress, prevent skin breakdown or manage other safety risks. Equipment and other items also obstructed a fire exit.
“Systems were not robust enough to demonstrate safety was safely managed, placing people at risk of receiving unsafe care and support.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider did not have reliable systems to monitor care, investigate incidents, learn lessons or drive improvement. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
“There was a lack of oversight and governance systems to effectively monitor the safety and quality of care provided and drive improvement.” from the report
Insufficient staff training
seriousStaff had limited knowledge of mental health needs and had not received important training in areas such as de-escalation and positive behaviour support. This was a breach of Regulation 18.
“They had not received training in associated and best practice areas such as positive behaviour support, de-escalation, break away techniques and physical intervention.” from the report
Care plans not personalised
seriousCare plans did not consistently describe people's strengths, goals, wishes, mental health needs or meaningful activities. This was a breach of Regulation 9.
“People's support plans were vague in relation to people's mental health, their strengths or abilities, wishes, aspirations and short and long-term goals.” from the report
Infection control gaps
needs fixingCleaning checks and schedules were not effective, and some laundry and protective equipment arrangements created contamination risks.
“People were not always protected from the risk of infection as staff were not consistently following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Privacy and involvement
needs fixingPeople were not always involved in planning their care, and shared rooms did not have screens or curtains to provide privacy.
“Shared rooms did not have screens or curtains to provide people with privacy.” from the report
- 01Which risk assessments and care plans have been rewritten, and how will you make sure staff follow the new guidance consistently?
- 02Has a suitably qualified person completed the fire risk assessment, and are current evacuation plans and emergency equipment now in place?
- 03What training have all staff completed in mental health, de-escalation, positive behaviour support and physical intervention?
- 04How are you now checking incidents, safeguarding concerns, complaints and accidents, and showing that lessons have been learned?
- 05How will my relative be involved in setting goals, planning activities and reviewing their care and communication needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; all ratings were assessed during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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, March 2022
Priory Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control measures and safe visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found measures to reduce infection risks. These included testing people and staff, using personal protective equipment, safe admissions, social distancing and isolation when needed, and keeping a room available for new admissions.
The home had individual visiting plans. Visitors were given information about testing and temperature checks. The premises were clean and hygienic, with cleaning records showing that these arrangements were being maintained.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a new overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Infection control
The home had measures to reduce the risk of infections spreading, including testing, PPE, social distancing and isolation when needed.
“People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19 and where positive results had been returned the registered manager had acted quickly to mitigate the risks to others catching the infection.” from the report
Clean premises
The premises had recently been refurbished and inspectors found all areas clean and hygienic. Cleaning records showed that the processes were being maintained.
“All areas of the service were clean and hygienic. Good cleaning processes were in place and records showed these were being sustained to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
People had individual visiting plans intended to protect them while keeping them in contact with friends and family.
“People had individual visiting plans in place to keep them safe and ensure they remained in contact with friends and family.” from the report
PPE and staff training
The home had a good stock of PPE and staff had been trained to use it correctly.
“The registered manager had maintained a good stock of personal protective equipment (PPE). All staff had received training on how to properly use PPE.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection-control and visiting arrangements changed since the inspection on 17 February 2022?
- 02How do you currently manage testing and PPE when someone using the service or a member of staff tests positive?
- 03How are individual visiting plans kept up to date?
- 04How do you manage admissions so that existing residents are protected from infection?
- 05What staffing measures are in place if COVID-19 or other infection pressures affect staffing levels?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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 Priory Lodge
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- December 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 2010.
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.