- Care home
Priority Care Home
Assessment report published 26 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Assessment dates were 5 to 15 October 2026. Priority care home is a residential home, which supports older people, some of whom have dementia. The service can accommodate up to 37 people. At the time of the assessment, there were 36 people residing in the service. We completed an assessment at this service to ensure the service had improved following the previous assessment. The service was previously in breach of regulation regarding safe care and treatment, and good governance. Following this assessment, the service was no longer in breach.
There was a positive culture of safety in the service. People we spoke with said they felt safe. Staff described the learning culture as positive. There were safe systems and processes to enable safe care, including relevant safeguarding referrals and robust safe staffing processes. Professionals provided a high level of feedback for the service. The environment was safe through robust infection, prevention and control (IPC) measures and maintenance processes. However, we did observe the kitchen, and storage areas needed a deep clean, this was immediately rectified by the service. Medicines were well managed, however medicines which were “as and when required” (PRN) had protocols which required either further detail or more up to date information. The service immediately rectified this.
Needs were well assessed on pre-admission, however there were at times missing or contradictory information including people’s mobility and fluid intake which impacted on the accuracy of monitoring and improving outcomes for people. The service immediately put actions into place to improve this, including updating care plans and speaking with staff. People, staff and professionals told us staff teams worked well together. There was an exceptional level of positive feedback regarding staff's kind and caring approach. People were supported to live their healthiest lives through close work with dietary, primary care and other local health teams. People were provided opportunity to promote their independence by accessing various in house and community activities including day centres, trips out and a reading corner. There was also accessible access to safe outside spaces for people. There was appropriate consent documentation in place. Staff advised us they wellbeing was well supported to an exceptional standard. This included consultation with staff about what their needs might be regarding the staff area.
People’s care was person centred and the service worked well with the local community, including local primary schools. People were supported to have highly accessible information and were supported to an exceptional level to be listened to and involved in care planning, including surveys available during every visit. People were supported to have equal access to outcomes and access to services. End of life care plans were in place.
There was a positive well led culture in the home. People, staff and professionals told us leaders were highly approachable and proactive. All feedback we received demonstrated confidence in leaders. There was robust governance and oversight processes in place. On a small number of occasions these did not pick up that incorrect information had been documented, for example, fluid thickness levels. This was rectified by the service. There was a diverse workforce in place, which supported people’s needs, and the service worked well in partnership with other services. The service had a particularly high focus on innovation by introducing circadian rhythm lighting and colour coding system for staff uniform and staff boards, to improve people’s care experience.
People's experience of this service
People and relatives provided exceptional positive feedback regarding how kind, caring and compassionate staff were, and we observed this on site also. People felt their needs were responded to in a timely manner, and call bell audits evidenced this. People were supported to a high standard, to be treated as individuals. There were “above and beyond” care plans, detailing people’s likes, preferences and life stories. People were promoted to have a high level of independence choice and control. For example, people could move freely throughout the home, including to a safe, accessible outside area.
People and relatives told us they felt safe. One person told us, “They [staff] have all the time in the world for me”. People felt staff were well trained and worked well together. One relative told us, “They [staff] all seem very happy to be here, and it feels that they all enjoy each other's company”. People also felt the environment was clean and well maintained. One relative told us, “This place is spotless”.
People told us staff were caring, kind and compassionate, and knew them well. One relative told us, “Staff are so kind, nothing is too much trouble.” One person told us “They [staff] know me well. They’re great”. People using the service told us their care was provided in a timely manner. One relative told us, “I am pleased with the speed of staff with [my relative] if they called for them”.
People and relatives told us they were involved in decisions regarding their care and were given opportunity to provide feedback. Specifically in relation to their needs, likes and preferences including life, hobbies and previous work.
People and their relatives had confidence in leaders, should they need to raise anything to them. People we spoke with would recommend the service to others. One family member when asked if they would recommend the service told us, “Of course I would, the place is excellent in all aspects.”