Priors Mead Care Home

Rating at last inspection

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People were cared for safely at Priors Mead. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs, all of whom were permanent and had experience of care. People’s risks had been assessed and staff knew what actions to take as well as how to report any suspected abuse. Medicines were safely managed and infection control procedures were practised. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to prevent reoccurrence.

People’s needs were assessed and kept under review. People were enabled to stay well and have their health needs met. Staff had the knowledge and skills to understand and care for each person. People enjoyed the food and risks to their nutrition or weight was monitored. The environment was homely and accessible for people. Technology was used effectively to support continuity of care. People’s consent was sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff demonstrated an attentive and caring approach with people. They spent time with people, listening to and supporting people in the most appropriate way. They enabled people to make decisions about their care. People were treated with dignity and respect.

People received care that was personal to them and staff took an interest in their lives. There was a variety of day to day activities and weekly outings were arranged. People’s aspirations were known and staff made efforts to meet these wherever they could. Complaints were responded to in a personal way. People at end of life were cared for in a sensitive and safe way.

The service was well led and a registered manager was in post. The provider aimed to improve the service further and quality audits and feedback were used to assess how this might be achieved. The provider aspired to be an employee led organisation and staff were being prepared to be financially accountable in the future. People were given a chance to be involved in decisions and changes and regular meetings were held. Statutory notifications were sent to the CQC. Environmental and safety checks were in place. The service had established good links with community services, schools and groups that benefited the people they cared for.

Priors Mead Care Home is a residential care home for up to 19 people over 65 years of age. At the time of the inspection there were 17 people using the service, who were all paying for their care privately.

There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and that care workers were friendly and kind towards them. They told us they were happy with all aspects of their care and if they had any concerns they were confident that the provider would listen to them.

People told us they enjoyed the food at the home. There was a menu in place and food was prepared using fresh, good quality ingredients. Food storage and preparation in the home followed the required food safety guidelines.

People had their healthcare needs met by the provider. Referrals and appointments were made with the GP and other professionals when required. Care records contained information related to people’s health and there was evidence that the provider corresponded in a timely manner with other professionals when required. People were supported to receive their medicines from trained staff.

Care workers told us they were given time to get to know people which helped them when supporting them. They were aware of the importance of asking for people’s consent and offering them choices. We observed this to be the case during the inspection, where we saw people being offered a choice of food and activities. Care workers respected people’s choices.

There were thorough recruitment checks in place which helped to ensure care workers were safe to work with people. These included checking references and identity documents, and completing criminal records checks. Care workers also completed assessments prior to being offered a job which helped the provider to decide if they were suited for a role in care. Induction training for new care workers was based on an industry accepted standard called The Care Certificate and ongoing training was renewed every year.

People were given time to come to a decision about whether they wanted to live in the home and the provider completed an assessment when people first moved in. Care plans were developed based on people’s needs. These were updated on a regular basis which helped to ensure that staff had access to current information to support people better.

Relatives told us the registered manager was approachable and managed the service well. They also said they were fully involved in their family member’s care and were kept informed if there were any changes to their family member’s needs.

The service was employee owned which meant that staff were committed to maintaining high standards within the home. There was also a programme in place to identify talented care workers within the organisation and to mark them as future potential managers.

Thorough quality assurance audits were in place which included weekly and monthly medicines audits, audits carried out by the owners which were based on CQC methodology, and feedback surveys sent to professionals.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service said the staff treated them 'well', they had no complaints and felt safe at the home. People also told us their room was comfortable for them. We saw the service identified risks to people and protected them from those risks.

The service provided safe, appropriate care, through carrying out initial assessments, planning care based on collating all the required information and making decisions based on risk assessments.

We saw the service identified risks to people and protected them from those risks.

We checked four staff files and these showed that a robust recruitment process was followed, which included the use of an application form, interviews, and a selection process with appropriate checks undertaken before staff began work.

We spoke to staff, who were aware of safeguarding procedures, and we saw records that confirmed they had all received recent training or refreshers in this area so they knew how to protect people. The manager confirmed that there had not been any significant concerns that had resulted in a formal investigation by the local safeguarding authority. This matched our records.

Is the service effective?

People who used the service told us they had no complaints and that the staff were 'nice' and treated them 'well'.

People talked with us about the lovely garden and the two house cats that were entertaining them. One person said they would like to use the garden more and needed support to use it but staff were sometimes busy.

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and people who used the service told us that they were involved in the planning of their care.

People were cared for and supported by staff that had appropriate checks undertaken before they began work. We saw that staff files were kept in good order and that the records were detailed and accurate.

Is the service caring?

People who used the service said the staff were nice, involved them in their care planning and treated them well. We saw that staff spoke to people softly and kindly and with respect.

People who used the service said the staff were 'nice', involved them in their care plan and treated them 'well'.

We saw that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's care plan.

We noted that people were offered a trial period so that they could decide if they liked the home and staff and wanted to live there before they committed to stay.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the service had changed the whole quality assurance system based on feedback from people who use the service from previous surveys. The manager also gave us a further example of where the organisation had analysed the outcome of surveys. This was where a trend of people wanting to go out more was identified and the service bought a car to support this.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that the home was subject to external audits, including for example, finances and the home's policies and procedures.

We noted that the provider attended the home on a regular basis to keep updated and in touch and also completed their own audits and checks with any actions required recorded.

The provider chose to attend the inspection so that they could contribute to the information and possible solutions needed to any shortfalls identified.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

We noted that the complaints system was monitored for appropriate action needed, and to identify any overall trends where practice changes may be required to improve quality for everybody.

People also told us that that they liked their rooms and the home and one person told us how their room was warm enough for them and suitable.

People said that they had no complaints but knew how to make one if they did.

One person told us the environment was very pleasant and they enjoyed using the garden.

Another person told us that the food was good, their room was suitable and they had no complaints and their visitor agreed.

We found that people who use the service, staff and visitors were protected against the risks of unsafe or unsuitable premises.