CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Priory Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Priory Park Care Home is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with previous serious concerns improved.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 15 December 2021. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care, medicines, staff recruitment, training and management records, and checked communal areas.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, staff understood people's risks, and infection control arrangements were in place.
People and relatives described kind, respectful and personalised care. Care plans were developed with people and families. Activities, communication support and end of life planning were also in place.
This inspection followed earlier concerns under the previous provider. The last rating, published in December 2019, was Inadequate. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and that the home was no longer breaching regulations.
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found medicines were managed safely and that there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed.
“Medicines were managed safely. Staff were suitably trained to administer medicines and checks on their practice had been carried out.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind, patient and respectful. Staff knew people's preferences and supported their dignity and independence.
“People were treated with respect, compassion and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were prepared with people and families and reviewed regularly. Staff adapted support to individual needs and preferences.
“Care plans were devised in partnership with the residents and their families.” from the report
Activities and relationships
An activities coordinator offered different activities, and the home supported people to maintain interests and relationships.
“People were supported to follow their interests and there was an activities co-ordinator at the service.” from the report
Improved leadership and oversight
Inspectors found better management systems, regular meetings and a positive staff culture. Leaders used audits and feedback to identify improvements.
“Systems were in place which continuously assessed and monitored the quality of the service.” from the report
Recent history of serious concerns
needs fixingThe previous rating under the previous provider was Inadequate. Inspectors said the required improvements had been made, but families may still want to ask how these changes have been sustained.
“The last rating for the service under the previous provider was inadequate, published on 10 December 2019.” from the report
Further improvements planned
minorThe report says some improvements around the home were planned. Inspectors also discussed whether bedroom items could be better placed for people who could not easily see them.
“The registered manager informed us there were plans in place for some improvements around the service.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to make sure the improvements from the previous Inadequate rating are maintained?
- 02What improvements around the home were planned, and have they now been completed?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific dementia, communication, mobility or nutritional needs?
- 04How are medicines checked for accuracy and safety, and how would you tell the family if there was an error?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans and making decisions about end of life care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, and was carried out to follow up earlier concerns and an action plan. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 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.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found serious infection control and governance failures, with improvements also needed to oral hygiene.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 27 November 2020. Inspectors followed up concerns about infection control, personal protective equipment, safeguarding, staff training and induction. They spoke with staff, reviewed five care records and other documents, and observed the home and care.
Inspectors found that people were not adequately protected from infection. Staff did not always use PPE correctly, COVID-19 admission and visitor checks were not robust, and infection prevention audits were not completed regularly. They also found that some people were not supported with oral hygiene as planned and that suitable equipment was not always available for people who wanted to get out of bed.
The home was rated 'Inspected but not rated' for Safe, Effective and Well-led, and overall. This does not mean the care was judged good or poor. The inspection looked only at specific concerns, not the full key questions, so the ratings were not changed.
Clean areas
Inspectors found the home visibly clean, with regular cleaning of high-touch areas.
“While the home was observed to be visibly clean and regular cleaning of high touch areas was carried out” from the report
Family visiting arrangements
The home had created a protected visiting room to help people maintain family contact without physical contact.
“They had established a 'visiting pod' which was a protected room where people could see their visitors without physical contact” from the report
Safeguarding response
The provider and manager reported and investigated the safeguarding concerns raised before the inspection. Inspectors found no evidence of wrongdoing in the case they reviewed.
“The registered manager and the provider took immediate action to report and investigate the concerns that we had received and no evidence of wrong doing was found.” from the report
PPE and infection control
seriousStaff did not always follow the correct PPE guidance. Inspectors saw face masks worn below chins and found that one staff member was not using the recommended type of mask.
“People were not adequately protected against the risk of infection.” from the report
COVID-19 checks
seriousThe home did not robustly follow guidance for admitting new people or checking visitors' COVID-19 risk status. These practices exposed people to risk.
“The provider and the registered manager had not robustly followed national COVID-19 guidance in relation to the admission of new people into the home and protocols for checking visitors COVID-19 risk status.” from the report
Oral hygiene
needs fixingPeople were not always supported with oral hygiene as their plans said. Some people did not have basic oral care items in their bedrooms.
“Some people did not have the aids required to maintain oral care such as toothpaste and toothbrushes in their bedrooms.” from the report
Governance and follow-through
seriousThe provider had already identified PPE problems, but they were still happening during the inspection. This showed that checks and learning had not led to timely improvement.
“the concerns on the use of PPE had already been identified by the provider's representatives before our inspection however, we found the poor practices were still going on at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure all staff use the correct PPE every time?
- 02How do you check and record the COVID-19 risk status of visitors and people being admitted?
- 03How often are infection prevention audits now completed, and can we see the recent results?
- 04How do you make sure each person receives the oral hygiene support in their care plan and has the equipment they need?
- 05What suitable sitting equipment is available for people who need help to get out of bed?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about infection control, safeguarding, staff training and induction; it did not assess the full key questions, and Caring and Responsive were not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 2021 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 Park Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 July 2020.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.