St Thomas' Priory

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 ensured people were at the centre of their care and treatment, and decisions about how to respond to changes in their needs were made in partnership with them and those involved in their care.

People told us staff worked alongside them and other professionals to ensure their support remained person‑centred. One person said, “The doctor comes and checks on me. If I feel unwell, I talk to staff and they will get someone to see me.” A relative also told us people received regular visits from health professionals when required.

Health professionals confirmed the service responded promptly to people’s changing needs. One visiting professional told us, “As problems arise, staff contact me quickly. I’d say they are very responsive to people’s health needs and any changes.” Although some care plans required updating, care records showed people had timely access to healthcare services and that staff acted appropriately when people’s needs changed.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood and recorded the diverse health and care needs of people and their local community, which meant care was not always joined‑up, flexible or supportive of consistent choice and continuity.

The provider had made significant improvements in activities and community involvement, including developing a cinema room and a new tearoom, and introducing initiatives to bring the local community into the home, such as visits from a local school. A RITA system was also available to support people living with cognitive impairment by offering reminiscence and interactive therapy. RITA stands for Reminiscence/Rehabilitation Interactive Therapy Activities and is an all-in-one touch screen system offering digital reminiscence therapy.

However, further work was needed to ensure opportunities for engagement were consistently recorded and accessible for people who remained in their rooms, so they did not experience social isolation. Staff also did not always have access to information about people’s histories, hobbies and interests, which limited their ability to offer personalised, well‑integrated support. In response to our feedback, the provider began reviewing the introduction of the ‘This Is Me’ document to help strengthen understanding of people’s backgrounds and preferences. We will review the impact of this at the next inspection.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate or up‑to‑date information in formats tailored to people’s individual needs. Although care plans included details about people’s communication needs, this was not always reflected in practice. One person had lost their hearing aid and, while the provider had made a referral to the relevant health professional, the person faced a wait of several weeks. Interim measures to support communication, such as enabling subtitles on the television or ensuring staff positioned themselves so the person could lip‑read, had not been put in place.

We also identified the absence of a written menu for people to review. The provider told us they were already addressing this and showed us a proposed template.

Relatives told us they had access to the complaints policy, which was displayed on the reception notice board, and a monthly newsletter was used to share information and updates about life in the home. However, gaps in the availability and accessibility of day‑to‑day information meant people did not always receive information in a way that fully supported their understanding.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback, ideas or concerns about their care, and staff involved people in decisions about their support, explaining what had changed as a result. One relative described how the provider had acted on a concern they raised, telling us their family member was moved to another room and environmental changes were made, which helped resolve the issue. Another relative told us they had been invited to attend dementia training alongside staff and were looking forward to learning more about the condition.

The provider used a ‘You Said, We Did’ initiative to demonstrate how they had responded to requests, suggestions and concerns from people and relatives. We reviewed examples of this during the inspection. Resident and relative meetings also took place regularly to encourage people to share ideas, raise issues and contribute to decisions about the running of the service.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People and relatives told us the service ensured timely access to healthcare professionals and acted quickly when concerns were raised. Staff described how they worked in partnership with external health services to support people’s changing needs.

Visiting professionals also confirmed this. One professional told us, “I was concerned about [person]. Staff needed to monitor them closely, which they did. The staff had a consistent approach to this, resulting in the person’s health improving. The provider is much more open, takes on feedback and strives to improve. It is really progressing.” Records we reviewed showed the provider sought professional advice and implemented recommendations appropriately to support people’s health and continuity of care.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to or act on information about people who were most likely to experience unequal outcomes. This meant people’s care and day‑to‑day experiences were not always tailored in response to their individual circumstances.

People and relatives told us there were positive opportunities for new and meaningful experiences. Relatives described being invited to dementia training alongside staff, and people told us about activities they enjoyed, such as scrumping apples in the grounds or watering plants outside. Relatives also told us they appreciated using the new cinema room with their family members. One relative commented, “They do include [person’s name], and [person] goes down and enjoy what activities they are doing.”

However, we found a disparity between the experiences of people who accessed communal spaces and those who remained in their rooms. While staff showed us some examples of one‑to‑one activities delivered in people’s rooms, these were infrequent, and people told us they had limited opportunities for meaningful engagement. This created a risk of unequal experiences and outcomes for people who, due to health or personal preference, spent more time in their rooms. We fed this back to the provider, who told us they would review how activities were offered and recorded to ensure people received equitable opportunities.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Although no one was receiving end‑of‑life care at the time of inspection, the provider described how this would be planned and managed in partnership with people, relatives and professionals. ReSPECT forms were in place where requested, recording peoples expressed wishes for emergency care and treatment. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment. These forms record a summary of a person's wishes for emergency care and treatment.

The provider shared their wider plans for the home, including opening the on‑site church for activities and spiritual support. Contingency plans were also in place to guide staff in the event of an emergency, helping ensure people’s safety and continuity of care.