CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 5 Priory Drive
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and staff were safely recruited. There were enough staff to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support based on their health needs and had access to healthcare professionals. Records about one person's best-interests decisions were not clear, so the home was asked to improve how these decisions are recorded.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said they were happy and staff treated them with sensitivity, compassion, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's skills, needs, interests and choices. People were supported to take part in activities, develop life skills and come and go as they wished.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks, an open culture and staff who understood their roles. The provider had improved its systems since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clearer recording of best-interests decisions still needed.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 3 September 2019. They spoke with two people who used the service, two staff members and two senior managers. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment and training records, and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, cared for and supported. Staff knew people well and supported their independence, choices and daily activities.
The home did not use restraint, seclusion or segregation. It used positive behaviour support and aimed to support people in the least restrictive way. Inspectors found one weakness: records about one person's best-interests decisions were not clear.
The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement and found several legal breaches. This inspection found improvements, and the provider was no longer in breach of those regulations.
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and tailored support to their needs, preferences and goals. People were helped to lead active lives and develop life skills.
“People continued to receive individualised care and support from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff had training and regular checks of their competence.
“People continued to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said they were happy. Inspectors saw staff supporting people with sensitivity, compassion, dignity and respect.
“Staff supported people with sensitivity and compassion.” from the report
Best-interests records
needs fixingRecords about decisions made in one person's best interests were not clear. Inspectors could not tell whether the right people, such as relatives, had been consulted.
“We found people were supported and encouraged to make decisions for themselves, however records relating to decisions made in one person's best interests were not clear.” from the report
- 01How do you record best-interests decisions, and how will you show that relatives or other relevant people were consulted?
- 02How do you support people who experience behaviour that could challenge, using the least restrictive approach?
- 03How are people's risk assessments and support plans reviewed when their mental health or medical needs change?
- 04How are people and their relatives involved in care reviews and decisions about staff recruitment?
- 05What quality checks do you carry out to make sure the improvements since the previous inspection are maintained?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; it also included a review of restrictive interventions. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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, September 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and caring support but concerns about safety, mental capacity decisions, and management oversight.
Inspectors visited the home unannounced on 28 June 2018 to check the quality and safety of care for two people living there. They looked at care records, medicines, staff training, and the environment.
They found the home was caring and responsive. People were involved in planning their care and enjoyed activities. Staff treated people with respect and supported their independence.
However, inspectors found safety risks were not always well managed. Some risk plans were incomplete or not followed, and the environment had hazards like broken window restrictors and a taped fire door. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not properly recorded.
The home had enough trained staff, and medicines were handled safely. But the systems to check and improve the service were not always effective, so some problems were not spotted or fixed quickly.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff treated people with kindness and understood their individual needs well.
“Staff spoke fondly about people and with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans reflected people's preferences and supported their independence.
“People's records were written in a person-centred way and described how each person wished to receive their care and support.” from the report
Risk management
seriousRisk plans were incomplete or not followed, exposing people to avoidable harm.
“Where staff had been provided with guidance to help reduce or minimise risks, information was not known by staff or followed.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousSome safety hazards were present, such as broken window restrictors and a taped fire door.
“One person's bedroom door did not close properly and the locking mechanism had been taped to prevent the door from locking.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act compliance
seriousAssessments and best interest decisions were not properly recorded or reviewed.
“Records did always demonstrate that staff had assessed the person's capacity to make the decision before making decisions on their behalf.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to improve risk management since this inspection?
- 02How do you ensure staff follow risk plans and keep people safe?
- 03Can you explain how you assess people's capacity to make decisions and involve them in best interest decisions?
- 04What steps have been taken to fix environmental safety issues like window restrictors and fire doors?
- 05How do you monitor and improve the quality of care and safety at the home?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all key areas of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 2018 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 5 Priory Drive
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.