You are here

Priory Rookery Hove Inadequate

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 31 January 2020

About the service

Priory Rookery Hove is a residential care home providing personal care to 11 younger adults with learning disabilities, autism, or mental health conditions at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 13 people. Priory Rookery Hove is a transitional unit. The aim of the service is to further develop people’s life skills to give them independence and integrate them into the community.

Priory Rookery Hove was designed, developed and registered before 'Registering the Right Support' best practice guidance was published. If the provider applied to register Priory Rookery Hove today it is unlikely the application would be granted. The model and scale of care provided is not in keeping with the cultural and professional ideas of how services for people with a learning disability and/or Autism should be run to meet their needs. Improvements are needed to ensure the service develops in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The building design fitted into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were not safe at the service. Policies in place to reduce risk were not always being followed or were not adequate to protect people from avoidable harm. Lessons were not learned when things went wrong, resulting in repeated events at the home where people were at risk. There were enough staff at the service to look after people, but staff worked long shifts and were often tired and stressed, which impacted on their ability to deliver care safely.

Staff had not received training in some of the specific mental health needs of people at the home. The home was not clean and was in a state of disrepair. Doors, radiators, cupboards, windows and a stair rail were all broken at the time of the inspection. People had food cooked for them by a chef on only three days a week, on other days support staff cooked. Support staff were not trained in nutrition or cooking. The communal kitchen which people should have been able to use was damaged, this left people to eat a repetitive diet with little choice.

Due to a lack of training staff did not always understand or respect people’s equality and diversity. Staff and people told us there was not enough time to give people the support they needed. People were often bored at the home and one said there were times when they could not go out with staff as staff were supporting other people. People at the home did not always get on and the layout of the home meant people could not have the privacy they wanted unless they remained in their own rooms.

Complaints were not always responded to in a timely fashion and relatives had complained that issues raised with the service went unanswered. The service had been without a full time positive behavioural support practitioner for some time. However, this role was now filled, and the service hoped to see a change in planning people’s care.

The service was not person centred. The service was designed as a transitional unit to enable people to learn to live independently, however people were not learning new skills in preparation for leaving the home and some people had lived at Priory Rookery Hove for over five years. Staff worked well as a team together, but felt poorly informed by senior management. Senior management changes during the year and several staff vacancies had made this problem worse. New senior staff were making changes to communication with staff to rectify this issue. The provider was aware of the issues with management support and had put plans in place to improve staff support, however these had not been embedd

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 31 January 2020

The service was not safe.

Effective

Inadequate

Updated 31 January 2020

The service was not effective.

Caring

Inadequate

Updated 31 January 2020

The service was not always caring.

Responsive

Inadequate

Updated 31 January 2020

The service was not responsive.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 31 January 2020

The service was not well led.