The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

St Thomas' Priory

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Armitage Lane,, Armitage, Rugeley, WS15 1PT (01543) 490112

Provided and run by:
Rugeley Invest Ltd

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

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.

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment: 13 August to 15 September 2025. 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.

The provider did not consistently ensure safe care across the service. Systems to manage risk, incidents, and safeguarding were not always effective or embedded. Staffing levels were not adequate to support people safely within some areas of the home. Staff knowledge of behaviour management and risk reduction varied, with some staff lacking confidence due to gaps in training and staffing levels. Equipment was not always maintained or set correctly, and risks to people were not always managed safely. Medicine records were not always completed safely. While infection prevention and control measures were generally well implemented, daily checks and equipment audits needed strengthening.

The provider did not consistently deliver effective care and treatment. Care plans were not always updated to reflect people’s current needs, and staff did not consistently follow evidence-based practices, particularly in relation to moving and handling. Inconsistent recording of people’s support was identified, with gaps in documentation around oral care and repositioning. While staff worked with external professionals and supported people to live healthier lives, inconsistent reporting and oversight impacted the quality of care. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were completed appropriately, and staff promoted choice and consent in line with legal requirements. Improvements were made in response to feedback, but further action was needed to embed effective care delivery across the service.

The provider did not consistently deliver care that upheld dignity, respect, and compassion. While staff showed kindness and people shared positive experiences, there were concerning examples of infantilising language, lack of discretion, and failure to respond to peoples expressed wishes. Environmental barriers limited independence. Staff wellbeing and enablement were mixed, with some staff feeling unsupported.

The provider did not consistently deliver person-centred care. Care plans were not always reflective of people’s current needs, and communication tools were not consistently used. People faced unequal access to activities, especially those with mobility or behavioural needs. The environment lacked dementia-friendly features and emotional stimulation, particularly for those imminently at the end of their life. While some inclusive practices and community engagement were observed, care plans did not reflect people’s goals, preferences or identities.

The provider did not consistently demonstrate effective leadership, governance, or a person-centred culture across the service. Failures in oversight, staffing, care planning, and incident management placed people at risk and compromised the safety, dignity, and responsiveness of care. The provider acted on all feedback and introduced new systems; we will review the success of these systems in the next inspection.

The provider was previously in breach of four legal regulations: Dignity and Respect, Safe Care and Treatment, Fit and Proper Persons Employed, and Good Governance. Following the inspection, sufficient improvements were identified in relation to Fit and Proper Persons Employed, and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation. Although some progress was noted in Safe Care and Treatment and Good Governance, further concerns were identified, and the provider remained in breach of these regulations. Similar concerns were also found in relation to Dignity and Respect, and this breach continued.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

4 April 2023

During a routine inspection

About the service

Hawksyard Priory Nursing Home is a care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 106 people over three different floors. There was access to a church and gardens at the home. The home provides support to younger adults, older people and people with dementia, mental health needs and those with a physical disability. At the time of our inspection there were 29 people using the service.

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

There were numerous issues identified throughout this inspection which had not been identified. Staff were not always recruited safely. The risk of contractors working unaccompanied on site had not been considered. Some improvements had been made to medicines management, but we found further improvements were needed. Risks to people were not always assessed and risks were not always mitigated.

Checks had been made on the safety of the building. However, timely action had not always been taken to rectify issues. Despite this, people felt safe and other safeguarding referrals had been reported. Lessons were not always learned when things went wrong. The building needed refurbishment, but the provider was already working on this. People told us they felt well treated, but we observed instances when they were not always treated with respect. People were not always supported enough to partake in enough activities of their choice. People were not always fully supported with their communication needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this. However, there was not always clear evidence of involvement from people’s relatives in the decisions to administer medicines covertly.

Staff received training and support to be effective in their role, although some improvements were needed. There were enough staff to support people. People felt safe and liked the staff. Infection control measures were in place to keep people safe. People liked the food and had choices, in line with their needs. People were supported to access other health professionals and had their health needs assessed and monitored, when needed. People were supported to remain independent. People felt staff knew them well and care plans contained people’s preferences.

People and relatives told us they felt able to make a complaint if needed and the registered manager was aware of their responsibility in this area. People’s end of life wishes had been considered. Despite some issues, people, relatives, and staff told us the home had improved since the last inspection. There was positive feedback about the registered manager and deputy manager. There were meetings to engage with those involved with the service.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence, and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and or who are autistic.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 10 January 2023) and there were breaches of regulation. The provider had a date to be compliant by and completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found the provider remained in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about staff recruitment. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. This inspection was also carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the full report for details.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to staff recruitment, assessing and managing risks to people, supporting people in a respectful and dignified way and the oversight of the quality and safety of the service.

We have issued the provider with warning notices. We will check the provider is taking action to comply with the legal requirements set out in the warning notices.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

17 November 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Hawksyard Priory Nursing Home is a nursing and residential home providing personal and nursing care to up to 106 people over three different floors. There is access to a church and gardens at the service. The service provides support to people with physical and emotional needs, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 29 people using the service over the ground and second floor.

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

People were not always supported to receive their topical creams as prescribed. People were not always supported to receive their medicines in the form of a transdermal patch safely. Staff did not ensure people's medicines were in stock to ensure people received these as they were prescribed.

Staff were not always ensuring they were providing support to people in line with their care planned risks and needs. People's care plans were not always up to date and reflective of their needs.

Staff training had not always been effective to ensure staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and safeguarding comprehensively. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. We have made a recommendation about staff training and competency checks to ensure staff have a sufficient understanding following their training.

Quality assurance tools had not identified all of the concerns we found at this inspection. Where audits were in place and had identified the concerns, we found action had not always been taken in a timely way to address these concerns. Accidents and incidents were not always shared with the registered manager to enable lessons to be learnt where things had gone wrong.

People did not have to wait for their care during our inspection however we have made a recommendation based on feedback for the provider to review their staffing levels against people's needs and risks. People were supported by safely recruited staff. People were supported by staff in line with infection control guidance.

People's weights were monitored and people had access to healthcare professionals where they were required. The home was spacious, and people were able to personalise their rooms should they wish to. People's care plans contained details of their preferences.

People, relatives and staff knew how to raise concerns and felt that action would be taken where concerns had been raised. Improvements were being made to the quality and oversight tools at the service at the time of our inspection and the provider and registered manager worked with us to ensure areas of concern were addressed as part of our inspection and following our visit.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and or who are autistic.

Right Support: Model of Care and setting that maximises people’s choice, control and independence

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies in the service supported this practice.

Right Care: Care is person-centred and promotes people’s dignity, privacy and human rights

Right Culture: The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and care staff ensure people using services lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

This service was registered with us on 10 October 2022 and this is the first inspection.

The last rating for the service under the previous provider was inadequate, published on 13 September 2022.

Why we inspected

We received concerns in relation to medicines management, staffing, the quality of care and treatment at the service and managerial oversight. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions safe, effective and well-led only. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to monitor the service and will take further action if needed.

We have identified breaches in relation to people's safe care and treatment and the oversight of the service. We issued a warning notice to advise what improvements were required and when these were to be made by.

The provider began acting on the concerns we found during our inspection. We will meet with the provider to discuss further action they will be taking.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.