St Thomas' Priory

Updated 26 January 2026

Date of Assessment: 10 March to 26 March 2026. The service is a residential care home providing nursing care and support to adults of all ages, including adults with physical disabilities, mental health issues and people living with dementia. This inspection was carried out to follow up on the enforcement action taken at the last inspection. We reviewed whether the provider remained in breach of any legal regulations.

The provider was no longer in breach of the regulations relating to dignity and respect, and safe care and treatment. However, the service remained in breach of the regulation relating to good governance. We have requested an action plan from the provider to address the concerns identified during this inspection.

Lessons had been learned since the last inspection. There were now sufficient staffing levels, and improvements had been made regarding training, medicines management, and safeguarding processes. Staff continued to be recruited safely, and they encouraged positive risk taking.

However, some risks remained, particularly in the level of detail included in risk assessments, incident management and staff debrief processes, and the monitoring of equipment.

Nutritional support continued to be effective, and staff worked well as a team. Mental capacity assessments were completed when required, and applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were made appropriately. However, some care plans and monitoring records were still unclear or inconsistent.

People were treated with kindness and dignity, and staff responded sensitively to their needs. Care was mostly personalised, although some care plans lacked detail about people’s histories and preferences. Staff had relevant behavioural support training and told us they felt supported by the provider.

Staff responded promptly to changes in people’s health and worked effectively with external professionals. Activities and community involvement had improved; however, people who chose to stay in their rooms did not always receive the same level of access to social activities.

Feedback systems were in place for people and relatives to share their views, and the provider outlined plans for further development of the service.

Leaders promoted a positive culture and had strengthened governance arrangements, although these were not yet fully embedded. Audits had improved but did not always identify gaps in records. Communication with external professionals was inconsistent. Leaders were responsive and open to feedback, but further work was needed to ensure improvements were sustained and consistently applied.

This service has been in special measures since 10 December 2025. The provider demonstrated improvements to the service. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in special measures.

Updated 26 January 2026

People told us they felt safe living in the home and spoke positively about the staff who supported them. They said staff responded promptly when they needed help, and several people described how the environment and routines helped them feel secure. People said they received timely access to health services, and relatives told us the provider was responsive to any concerns they raised. We observed improvements in activities and community involvement, with people in communal areas enjoying meaningful experiences such as gardening, films in the cinema room and outdoor activities. However, people who spent most of their time in their rooms told us they had limited engagement and fewer opportunities, which we also observed during the inspection.

Relatives told us there was enough staff to support people safely. One relative told us, “I think there are enough staff, even at weekends where it is mostly the same.” We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We observed calm and respectful interactions across the service.

People told us they enjoyed their meals, we observed people choosing where to sit for meals, enjoying their food and engaging in activities, which supported their wellbeing. One person said, “The food is excellent here.” People felt supported with daily routines and relatives described improvements in people’s health, including improved appetite and weight gain.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind, compassionate and supportive, and we observed staff speaking discreetly, maintaining privacy, and involving people sensitively in decisions about their care. One relative said, “I think this place is excellent. Staff do everything for [my family member].” People said staff responded quickly when needed and reassured them when they felt worried or distressed. We observed staff responding calmly to distress and using person‑centred approaches informed by recent training.

People, relatives and many professionals told us the culture of the home had improved, and staff described leaders as approachable, supportive and committed to promoting dignity, inclusion and upholding people’s rights.