CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Priory Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were identified and staff had clear guidance on how to support them safely. Medicines records and storage checks had improved, and infection prevention arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, induction and supervision needed for their roles. People received support with food, drinks and healthcare, and staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report says the previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report says the previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, regular audits and systems to identify improvements. People, relatives and staff said the home was well managed and that they could share concerns or ideas.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-managed care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was a focused inspection carried out on 4 June and 17 June 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff, the manager, the provider and health professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, staff and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems, clear risk plans, suitable training, good infection control and regular checks on quality. People said they felt safe, enjoyed the food and found staff friendly.
The previous inspection in 2019 rated the home Requires Improvement and found three breaches of regulations. At this inspection, the home had made enough improvement and was no longer in breach. Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this focused inspection, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Safer medicines
The home had introduced an electronic medicines management system. Records for creams and medicine storage temperatures had also improved.
“Since our last inspection the provider had installed an electronic medicines management system.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff and said required recruitment checks had been completed. Staffing numbers were kept under review.
“All the required pre-employment recruitment checks had been carried out.” from the report
Training and support
Staff had induction, training and regular supervision. Staff could also approach the manager for further support.
“Staff had been provided with the training they needed to enable them to carry out their roles effectively.” from the report
Kind, homely care
People, relatives and staff described the home as friendly and welcoming. Inspectors observed personalised and timely responses to people.
“We observed and heard positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Communication with relatives
The provider kept people and relatives updated during the pandemic and offered different ways to give feedback.
“The provider kept people and relatives up to date by email throughout the pandemic with weekly updates and guidance on any changes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are medicines now checked, including electronic records, cream charts and storage temperatures?
- 02How do you decide how many staff are needed at busy times, and what happens when someone is off sick?
- 03How are staff training and supervision kept up to date?
- 04How do your audits identify and fix any new problems in care or records?
- 05How will you assess my relative's needs, preferences and ability to make decisions before they move in?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not assessed and previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 July 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.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement for the second time; inspectors found kind, responsive care but unsafe medicines systems and weak oversight.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 13 and 14 May 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive. People were treated with kindness and respect, involved in their care, supported to keep in touch with visitors and offered activities and choices.
Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found problems with medicines, risk assessments, staff training and supervision. Staffing was sufficient overall, but weekend staffing was reduced and care staff also had cleaning and meal duties.
The home breached three regulations. CQC imposed a condition on the provider's registration and said it would continue monitoring the home. The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in January 2018.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind, listened to them and knew their needs. Inspectors saw people being offered choices and treated with dignity.
“People told us the staff were kind, caring and knew them and what support they needed.” from the report
Improved care planning
Care plans had improved since the previous inspection. They included guidance about communication and people's care, and people had opportunities to review them.
“We observed that care plans contained guidance for staff on how to meet people's needs and were written positively and respectfully.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join activities, follow their interests and receive visitors without restrictions. The home also supported religious needs and links with local groups.
“People were able to follow their interests and were supported to remain active.” from the report
Cleaner environment
The cleanliness concerns from the previous inspection had improved. Inspectors found clean areas, suitable infection control practices and regular checks of toilets and bathrooms.
“Areas of the service were clean with free from bad odours.” from the report
Medicines not consistently safe
seriousSome medicines had no clear instructions or complete records. There were also problems with topical cream records, storage temperatures and time-sensitive medicines.
“People were not supported to receive their time sensitive medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Risks not fully assessed
seriousSome risks, including choking while taking medicines and a recruitment concern, had not been properly assessed or followed up.
“However, we observed one person had been assessed as being at risk of choking on their medicines.” from the report
Training and supervision gaps
seriousThe home could not show that new staff had received a thorough induction. Some staff lacked relevant training and did not receive regular supervision.
“People were supported by staff who had not received effective training and support.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits failed to find the problems inspectors identified. There was no overall improvement plan, and care and medicine records contained gaps or inaccuracies.
“Quality monitoring systems, such as audits were not always effective.” from the report
Reduced weekend staffing
minorStaffing numbers fell at weekends. Care staff had to carry out cleaning, meal preparation and washing up, which took them away from care duties.
“This meant the care workers had to prepare tea and wash up.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every 'as required' medicine has clear instructions and every dose is recorded?
- 02How do you now make sure time-sensitive medicines are given at the prescribed time?
- 03How are weekend staffing levels calculated against people's current needs, and who carries out cleaning and meal preparation?
- 04What induction, health-specific training and supervision does each new staff member receive?
- 05What improvement plan and audits are now in place to identify problems with medicines, care records and personal hygiene records?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection of the whole care home and all five CQC questions, including care and accommodation. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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.
Every inspection of The Priory Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.