We carried out a review of the data available to us about Priory Supported Living East England on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Priory Supported Living East England, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ We have rated the service as good overall but requires improvement in well led. There were systems in place to review the service in respect of compliance and risk. We found however there were a number of issues which had not been identified at the time of the inspection. Health and safety audits had identified concerns but these had only been put in place recently.
¿Some people were living in poor standards of accommodation which could have an impact on their health and safety. This was a landlord issue but we discussed this with the service who told us how they were supporting people to raise these issues with the landlord or advocating on their behalf.
¿ The provider had identified that not all their staff training was adequate in terms of supporting people who behaviour might challenge. We found that some staff were not confident in supporting people who had behaviours which could impact negatively on themselves or others. Staff had e-learning around managing and deescalating behaviours but agreed this was not in sufficient depth, or give them the necessary confidence.
incident management was in place but information not clearly collated too see if additional actions might help reduce the level of incidents. Behavioural plans and risk assessments did not show how other health care professionals had been involved. Gaps in record keeping were identified and clear processes were not in place for every situation.
¿People spoken with were happy with the service they received and staff enhanced their experiences by providing care and support in a timely way around their assessed needs. This was reflected in people’s support plans.
¿ The service engaged with people about the service and their wider care issues.
¿ People felt safe and staff were supported in their role to help them deliver effective care and support. Clear records of induction were not seen on each staff file we looked at but the registered manager was aware of this and showed us how they were addressing it. Staff recruitment and induction was sufficiently
¿ Staff training was an area for development to ensure all staff had been assessed as competent in the work place and felt confident in their job role.
¿The service was well planned to ensure staff were available to provide the support needed and emergency situations had been assessed and planned for.
¿ Risks were managed and we found systems in place to help ensure people had their medicines as required. Audit tools were not fit for their current purpose and medicines records were not audited as often as the service said they should be. This was an oversight which the registered manager told us how they would address.
¿People had capacity to make decisions and their consent was recorded. They were involved in their support and encouraged to be autonomous and independent.
Rating at last inspection: (Good) the last report was published on 05 August 2016.
Why we inspected This was a scheduled planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: Going forward we will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated Good.
At the time of this inspection care was provided to 12 people who live with a learning disability and who may also have mental and physical health needs.
This comprehensive inspection took place on 20 July 2016 and was announced.
The provider is required to have a registered manager as one of their conditions of registration.
A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the agency. 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 were kept safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incident of harm. People were looked after by enough staff to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were assessed to be suitable to look after people who used the service. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and were enabled to be independent with this if they were safe to do so
People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink. They were also supported to access health care services and their individual health and nutritional needs were met.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA 2005] and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] and to report on what we find. The provider was aware of what they were required to do should any person lack mental capacity. People’s mental capacity was assessed and care was provided in their best interests. Staff were trained and knowledgeable about the application of the MCA. Arrangements were in place for external agencies to make DoLS applications to the Court of Protection [CoP]. One application was submitted and the outcome of CoP decision was pending.
People were looked after by staff who were trained and supported to do their job.
People were treated by kind, respectful staff who they liked and they were enabled to make choices about how they wanted to live. People and their relatives were given opportunities to be involved in the review of their individual care plans.
People were supported to be part of the community; they were helped to take part in recreational and work-related activities that were important to them. Care was provided based on people’s individual needs. There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and these were acted upon.
The registered manager was supported by a team of management staff and care staff. Staff were supported and managed to look after people in a safe way. Staff, people and their relatives were able to make suggestions and actions were taken as a result. Quality monitoring procedures were in place and action was taken where improvements were identified.
Craegmoor Supporting You in Cambridgeshire is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The number of hours of care provided to each person varies depending on their individual needs. The service is provided to people with a learning disability.
This announced inspection took place on 18 and 23 June 2015. The previous inspection was undertaken on 4 July 2013 and we found that the regulations which we assessed were being met at that time.
At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
Staff knew what actions to take if they thought that anyone had been harmed in any way. However, the correct reporting procedures hadn’t always been followed when they suspected someone may have been harmed. This could place people at risk of harm.
Although staff had received training in the administration of medicines they weren’t always following the correct procedures and as a result this could place people at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed. The errors had not been noticed when the completed medication records were received by staff in the office.
The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were not being followed. This meant that people were being restricted from leaving their home on their own to ensure their safety. The correct procedures were not being followed and therefore the restriction was not lawful.
There were sufficient staff to ensure that people received the care that they required. A thorough recruitment procedure had been followed to ensure that the right people were employed.
Staff knew people well and were aware of their history, preferences and likes. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld.
Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed.
People were supported to purchase and prepare the food and drink that they chose. People were supported where necessary at mealtimes but were also encouraged to be independent as much as possible.
Where possible, people had been involved in the assessment and planning of their care. Care records gave staff the information they required so that they were aware of how to meet people’s needs.
There was a complaints procedure in place although this was not written in a format that some people who used the service would find it easy to understand.
We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We found that care records were current and provided staff with detailed information to help them provide care that reflected peoples' care needs.
We observed staff talking to people in a way that respected them and demonstrated an understanding of their particular support needs.
Staff we talked with spoke knowledgably about the steps they took to protect vulnerable adults. The provider had systems in place to notify the local safeguarding authority of any incidents or allegations of abuse.
We spoke with a nurse who regularly visited a person using the service who said that that staff worked closely with the community mental health team to enable them to understand the complex needs of people using the service.
One person said, 'They come and pick me up on time when I'm going to the day centre." Another said, "I like the staff. They look after me well."
People we spoke with were able to tell staff what they wanted, and were very happy with their care. Some areas of the care plans did not provide enough individualised information for staff and were not reviewed in line with the companies policies, which if people were less able could have a bigger impact than currently.
People indicated they had access to a variety of community and healthcare services and they were assisted by staff, if necessary, when attending appointments.
Evidence was seen in care plans of people's preferences and participation being promoted. People indicated that they knew who to speak to if they wished to raise any concerns.