CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Priory Supporting Care Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed and reviewed, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Safeguarding procedures, recruitment checks, infection control and accident investigations were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks and improvements to medicines monitoring and staff handovers. The management team involved people, relatives and staff and worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe medicines, enough staff and improved management systems after earlier concerns.
This was a focused follow-up inspection on 18 April 2023. One inspector reviewed records, medicines, staff rotas, recruitment files, training, accidents and management checks. The inspector also spoke with people, staff and relatives.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, there were enough staff, and recruitment checks were in place. People were protected from abuse and accidents were investigated.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with breaches about safe care and treatment and good governance. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made, so the home was no longer in breach.
This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall Good rating.
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were monitored closely, records were completed correctly and protocols were available for medicines given when needed.
“MAR sheets were completed correctly and there were no missing signatures.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment files showed the required checks had been completed.
“There were enough staff employed by the service to meet the needs of the people and staff recruitment processes were robust.” from the report
Risks were reviewed
Risk assessments gave staff guidance about supporting people safely, including with mobility and falls. Equipment and fire safety checks were also carried out.
“Risk assessments were reviewed and updated to reflect any changes in people's needs.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to raise concerns and share ideas. Inspectors found the management team approachable and involved.
“The registered manager operated an 'open door' policy and were in regular contact with people, relatives and staff to ensure the service ran smoothly.” from the report
Improved checks
The home had improved its handover system and was using regular audits to monitor care, medicines and health and safety.
“The management team undertook regular audits to monitor the quality of the service they provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now check that medicines remain available in the right quantities and that as-needed medicine protocols are up to date?
- 02How do you make sure staff handovers contain all important information at the start of each shift?
- 03How are staffing levels adjusted when people have appointments or their needs change?
- 04How do you involve relatives in meetings, feedback and decisions about changes in their family member's health?
- 05When was the last review of my relative's care plan, and what audits or checks informed it?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found improvements in staffing, medicines, risk management and infection control after the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 December 2020. The inspectors looked mainly at safety, infection control and how the home was managed. They spoke with people, staff, the manager and relatives, and checked care files, staff records, rotas and other documents.
The inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment checks and medicines being given as prescribed. Risk assessments, fire safety checks and equipment checks were in place. The home was clean, and staff used protective equipment and testing arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The home had improved since the last inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Improvements included medicines systems, quality checks and arrangements for management cover. However, this was not a full inspection, so Safe and Well-led were marked Inspected but not rated, and the other three areas were not assessed.
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staffing levels were linked to the number of people living there and the complexity of their needs.
“There were enough staff providing care.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were available and staff had training and competency checks. Regular audits were used to identify errors or gaps.
“Medicines were always available and PRN protocols were kept with medicines.” from the report
Risk management
Personal risk assessments covered issues such as falls, pressure sores and moving and handling. Fire doors, alarms, sensory mats and other equipment were checked.
“Risk assessments had been completed for each person and these identified risks to people and how staff could mitigate them.” from the report
Infection control
The home had enhanced cleaning and infection control arrangements during the pandemic. Inspectors found PPE, testing and safer visiting measures in place.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had improved its quality checks and had a clearer management structure, with senior cover on each shift.
“During this inspection, we found improvements had been made in these areas.” from the report
Out-of-hours response
needs fixingBefore the inspection, there had been an incident where a text message was used instead of a telephone call and management response was delayed. New guidance had been introduced, so ask whether this has remained effective.
“a text message was used instead of a telephone call that resulted in delayed management response.” from the report
Relative feedback
minorThe home had sent surveys to relatives, but they had not yet been returned. This means the inspection had limited completed survey feedback from relatives.
“Relatives had also been sent survey questionnaires but had yet to complete and return to the service.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are used now, and how are they reviewed when people's needs change?
- 02What new procedure is now used for urgent management contact outside normal hours?
- 03How do you check that the medicines improvements found at this inspection are still being maintained?
- 04How are relatives now encouraged to give feedback, and what changes have been made from that feedback?
- 05When was the last full inspection, and what is the current rating for Effective, Caring and Responsive?
This was a focused inspection of specific concerns under Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the full Safe and Well-led questions were not rated and Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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 Supporting Care Limited
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Priory Supporting Care Limited →
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Priory Supporting Care Limited →
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 January 2012.
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 Havering
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.