St Thomas' Priory

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

The service had previously been in breach of the legal regulation relating to dignity and respect. Staff now treated people with dignity, upheld their rights, and the provider had implemented several culture improvement projects focused on promoting respectful, rights‑based care. As a result, the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider consistently demonstrated a caring culture in which people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. Staff interactions we observed were warm and respectful, and people told us they felt valued and supported by the team.

People described staff as kind and attentive. One person told us, “The staff are kind and understanding. They help me with my memory.” A relative said, “Staff are very pleasant; they will always address people by their first name.” Throughout our visit, staff responded to people in a patient and reassuring manner, offering comfort when people became worried or confused.

Staff upheld people’s dignity at all times. We observed them speaking discreetly when supporting individuals with personal care, ensuring conversations remained private. Staff also took time to support people with their appearance and comfort, which helped people feel respected and well cared for.

Since the previous inspection, the provider had undertaken significant work to strengthen its approach to dignity and respect. This included establishing quarterly dignity forums for people and relatives, re‑developing the staff charter, delivering dignity workshops, and providing practical training on respectful care. These initiatives had helped reinforce consistent expectations and embed dignity-focused practice across the service.

People were treated as individuals, and their care, support and treatment generally reflected their needs, preferences and routines. People and their relatives told us staff understood them well. One relative said, “Staff know [person’s name] well. Staff know what they like doing and they encourage them to take part in activities as much as they can.”

Staff spoke confidently about people’s likes, dislikes and personal routines. Through our conversations and observations, it was clear staff used this knowledge to tailor their approach and provide personalised care.

Staff shared examples of how they promoted activities which reflected people’s unique identities and needs, including the celebration of culturally significant events such as Diwali. Diwali, also known as the Festival of Lights, is a major Hindu celebration.

Care plans contained information about people’s needs; however, details about their personal histories, interests and preferences were sometimes limited. We raised this with the provider. The provider explained the activity coordinator held more comprehensive information about people’s interests and used this effectively to tailor activities and engagement. This helped ensure people continued to benefit from support which reflected what mattered to them.

People did not always experience care promoting independence or supporting them to understand their rights or exercise choice and control over daily life. We observed some positive examples in communal areas. However, this was not consistent across the service.

People who spent time in communal spaces were supported to take part in daily activities and choose how they wished to spend their time. Several people told us they felt they had choice, including decisions such as what they ate and when they got up. One person said, “There are lots of activities,” and others described staff encouraging personal decision‑making.

However, for people who spent most of their time in their rooms, either due to health needs or personal preference, there was limited evidence of engagement, stimulation or support to promote independence. One person told us, “They [staff] are kind, but they haven’t got any time. The staff don’t come and talk to me.” Another said, “I watch TV or read. There is nothing else to do.” This meant people did not consistently receive personalised interaction or opportunities for meaningful activity. The provider responded to our feedback by developing new systems to monitor social interaction for people who remained in their rooms.

Staff told us they respected people’s choices, and we observed staff encouraging decision‑making during some interactions.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and took appropriate action to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us staff responded promptly when they needed assistance. Relatives also described staff as reassuring and attentive when people experienced distressed emotions. One relative told us, “When [person] gets upset the staff respond quickly and reassure them.”

Staff were able to describe how they supported people when they became distressed. One staff member spoke confidently about the recent behavioural support training they had completed and explained how they had developed new skills and used different strategies tailored to people’s needs.

Incident recording had improved since the last inspection, allowing staff to better understand triggers and patterns associated with distressed behaviour. We observed staff taking part in behavioural support training during the visit, and we also saw staff responding to people who appeared distressed in a calm, patient and supportive manner. Their approach helped reduce anxiety and ensured people received appropriate, timely reassurance.

The provider promoted staff wellbeing and took steps to ensure staff felt supported, valued and enabled to deliver person‑centred care. Staff told us they felt well supported in their roles. One staff member said, “During my interview I discussed career progression, they [the provider] are really heavy on it here. I’ve done lots of courses. The registered manager is really supportive.”

Records showed staff received regular supervision and one‑to‑one workshops, which helped maintain staff confidence, skills and reflective practice. Staff described the registered manager and senior team as approachable and supportive, and they felt able to discuss concerns or seek guidance when needed.

The provider also used staff reward initiatives, such as ‘employee of the month’, to recognise good practice and encourage staff to reflect on positive outcomes. This contributed to a culture where staff felt appreciated and motivated to continue developing their skills and delivering compassionate care.