You are here

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 7 May 2014
Date of Publication: 4 June 2014
Inspection Report published 04 June 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 7 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Two inspectors carried out this inspection on Wednesday 7 May 2014. We visited the service from 12pm to 9pm. We spoke with the manager, four visiting relatives, seven people who used the service and nine nursing and care staff. The evidence we collected helped us to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

The service is managed by Jennie Mitchell. The other manager identified at the front of this report no longer works at The Priory. They have yet to cancel their registration.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

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

Is the service safe?

We inspected staff rotas and talked with staff and people who lived at The Priory. We saw there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people who lived on the ground floor. We saw there were not enough staff to support the higher dependency of people who lived on the nursing floor. We also saw an over reliance on agency staff and bank staff. This meant people were at risk of not getting consistent care on the nursing floor.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There was no one living at The Priory Nursing Home who had a current DoLs in place.

We looked at the premises. We saw the premises were secure and in good order. We looked at equipment used by staff. We saw equipment was also in good order. We noted some actions identified by the service to improve the premises and equipment had not been carried out.

Is the service effective?

People had individual care plans which set out their assessed care needs. These provided staff with the information they needed to support people with their care. Assessments included people�s needs for equipment, nutrition and personal care. We saw some daily care records such as positional charts had not been fully completed. This meant we could not be sure whether some care tasks had been undertaken.

Is the service caring?

People told us they were supported by staff who were kind, caring and patient. One person told us, �Staff are kind, the care is very good.� We observed staff on both floors to be patient, kind and respectful with people living at The Priory.

Is the service responsive?

People had access to a range of health care professionals, including a GP who visited the service weekly. We saw people were encouraged to take part in activities, and there was good provision for individual and group activities.

Is the service well-led?

The organisation did not use a staff dependency tool to determine the needs of people living in the home. We saw the organisation determined the number of staff on duty by the number of beds being used. The level of care staff did not reflect people's support needs.

We saw some of the quality audits and safety audits had not been carried out in a timely way, and actions from previous audits had not been completed. We found audits for fire safety, general maintenance and water quality identified improvements were needed but actions had not been taken.