Priors Mead Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People told us they were involved in initial and on-going assessments. Records were person centred and reflected what was important to the person.

The registered manager told us they liked to assess each person in their natural environment before they moved into the service. They said they wrote a summary of the visit and this was included in the person’s care plan. However, they were developing a more detailed assessment form to help ensure they captured more information. Care plans were developed from the initial assessment.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Although people’s nutritional needs were assessed and met, some people told us they did not always like the food on offer. Their comments included, “My pet groan here is the food… I have not had a good meal here yet”, “I am not the only one who doesn’t like the food. Lots of the ladies downstairs don’t like the food but they decide to put up with it and not to moan”, “I am not a pudding person but nearly always the pudding is bought in, there is not much homemade and a lot of food is wasted. I never get an explanation of what the meal is, it is just slapped onto my plate” and “I can’t manage to cut into the cheap and poor-quality meat. The vegetables are not cooked well. Yesterday we had a spoonful of cauliflower and broccoli but it was all over cooked.”

One person told us they were vegetarian, and they were not always offered a suitable vegetarian option. Whilst we were speaking with the person, the cook entered and said, “We have pork today- what would you like instead?” The person replied, “I don’t know, what have you got?” There was no reply so the person then said, “It doesn’t matter I will go without.” The cook then said, “I will give you extra-large portions of the vegetables.”

We fed this back to the registered manager who took immediate action to make improvements. They sent us evidence they had met with the cook to discuss the concerns and put an action plan in place. They told us, “[Cook] and I worked together to design several new summer menus offering greater variety, based on the most recent resident preference sheets. These new menus have been created to better reflect the current tastes and dietary needs of all residents. We remain committed to regularly seeking [people’s] input rather than making assumptions, ensuring that their individual needs and wishes are consistently respected."

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the home, there was a very good culture and supportive teamwork. Their comments included, “I really like working here”, “I like the system here”, “Staff are nice and the manager is really nice” and “Family and relatives are lovely and make me feel valued.”

People told us staff worked well together and communicated with them well in order to meet their needs. One person said, “We have a very good medical system here. The GP visits once a week, there is a very good relationship established. If you need to see the GP you are put on the visit list."

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. Care records contained detailed information about people’s health conditions and how these might affect people. There were regular visits from health care professionals including the GP, chiropodist, optician and district nurses.

Health care professionals said the staff and registered manager worked very closely with them and communication was good.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.  

There was evidence of regular reviews and action being taken immediately following any changes to people’s health needs. The service worked closely with healthcare professionals who knew people well and followed their advice to help meet people’s changing needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People told us staff asked for their consent and involved them in decisions about their care and support. They said their choices were respected.