CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Priory Nursing and Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, PPE, testing, vaccinations, visiting arrangements and the management of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, testing, PPE and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 1 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
The home had separate zones for staff, PPE stations outside bedrooms and a testing facility for staff and visitors. Staff and people were regularly tested and had received COVID-19 vaccinations.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, managing infection risks, admitting people safely and supporting visits in line with the guidance in force at the time.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all areas of care.
Separate infection control zones
The home divided its building into zones, with separate entrances and exits for staff. Staff stayed in the same zone to help prevent infection spreading.
“The home had been divided into zones with separate entrances and exits for staff.” from the report
PPE available
PPE stations were placed outside people's rooms so staff could change PPE before entering. Inspectors saw staff wearing PPE during the visit.
“We saw there were PPE stations throughout the service outside people's rooms for staff to be able to change their PPE before entering each bedroom.” from the report
Testing and visits
The home had a testing facility for staff and visitors. It also supported visits under the guidance in force at the time.
“Visitors were asked for evidence of vaccine and a negative lateral flow test on arrival where there was no exemption.” from the report
Risk assessments and vaccinations
The report says individual COVID-19 risk assessments were in place for people and staff. Regular testing and vaccinations were also in place.
“Staff and people were regularly tested and had received COVID-19 vaccinations.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 01 February 2022?
- 02What are your current rules for visiting, testing and PPE?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 04Are staff and visiting professionals currently vaccinated or exempt, and how is this checked?
- 05What ratings or inspection information is available for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but consent assessments were not always completed properly.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 08 January 2020. They spoke with 13 people, three relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement because capacity assessments and best-interest discussions were not always completed or recorded when bedrails or lowered beds were used.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and breached one regulation. Inspectors found the home was no longer in breach at this visit.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough skilled staff and the required recruitment checks. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“Recruitment files showed that all required checks had been made to ensure only staff who were suitable to work with people were employed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and respectful. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“People told us they were treated with kindness and respect by the staff who supported them.” from the report
Personalised daily life
People could choose when to get up, when to go to bed and how to spend their day. The home also offered activities and welcomed visitors.
“People were able to make choices about their day to day care.” from the report
Improved management
The home had a clearer staffing structure and more effective systems for finding and addressing shortfalls. Its overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“Since our last inspection systems for monitoring the quality of the service had become further embedded and were more effective in identifying shortfalls and driving improvement.” from the report
Consent decisions were not always recorded
needs fixingWhen people might not have had capacity to consent, assessments and best-interest discussions were not always completed for bedrails and lowered beds. The manager said this was being addressed, and CQC planned to check progress.
“Where there were concerns about a person's capacity to consent to their care and treatment assessments of their capacity and discussions had not always taken place” from the report
Effective care remained inconsistent
needs fixingThe Effective question stayed at Requires Improvement. Inspectors said care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or were not consistent.
“This meant the effectiveness of people's care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.” from the report
- 01Have all capacity assessments and best-interest discussions for bedrails and lowered beds now been completed and recorded?
- 02How do you check that decisions made for people who may lack capacity are in their best interests and are the least restrictive option?
- 03What has changed since the previous inspection to keep the improvements in recruitment, diabetes care planning and medicines reviews in place?
- 04How many staff are normally on duty for the number and needs of residents, including people requiring nursing care?
- 05How are families involved in reviews of care, consent and end-of-life wishes?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care and premises and assessed all five CQC questions; the report compares the findings with the previous inspection published in January 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 January 2020 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 Nursing and Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at The Priory Nursing and Residential Home →
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Priory Nursing and Residential Home →
- January 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 November 2013.
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 Telford and Wrekin
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 £1,200 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.