We carried out a review of the data available to us about Priory Court Care Home 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 Court Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Priory Court Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 60 people. The service provides support to adults of all ages, people living with dementia and people with a physical disability or sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection there were 44 people using the service. The service is ia purpose-built care home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
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 practice.
Staff had been safely recruited and received training in how to care for people safely. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs in a calm unrushed manner.
Care plans reflected people’s needs and risks had been identified and assessed. Care and equipment were in place to keep people safe from harm. People’s ability to eat and drink safely and maintain a healthy weight were assessed and where needed food was modified to be safe for people to eat.
Staff had received training in how to keep people safe from abuse and knew how to raise concerns. They were confident in the registered manager’s ability to take action to keep people safe.
Medicines were safely managed and people received their medicines as prescribed.
The home was clean and staff worked to keep people safe from the risk of infection. Staff used protective equipment appropriately.
People’s privacy and dignity were respected, and the registered manager had provided activities in the home to keep people engaged. People were able to receive visitors when they wanted.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of care provided. The registered manager gathered views of people and their relatives. All this information was used to improve the care provided.
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 17 October 2019).
The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People were supported to see their friends and relatives. There were no restrictions on who could visit them, and they were able to visit in the person’s bedroom. They were still required to wear a face mask and to sanitise their hands.
The home was cautiously opening up to support people’s well-being in a safe way and were now letting in a hairdresser, entertainment and representatives of people’s religion.
Where people needed to isolate when they moved into the home the registered manager ensured that staff checked on them hourly to ensure they were safe and happy.
Priory Court Care Home is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care, including nursing for up to 60 people, some of whom were living with dementia. On the day of our visit there were 49 people using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We received mixed responses as to whether people felt safe at the home. Not all accidents and incidents were records. Medicines were not stored, administered or documented safely. Where people were at risk of pressure sores or choking, no risk assessments were in place to help staff to minimise these risks. There were insufficient staff to meet people’s needs and the home relied heavily on agency staff. However, this had already been recognised by the provider prior to the inspection and they were in the process of recruiting new staff. We raised safeguarding concerns to the local authority following the inspection.
Some people’s nutrition and hydration needs had not been fully assessed and met. We heard mixed responses about the food. The home was not consistently seeking or following advice from healthcare professionals. People were not supported to attend hospital appointments. We identified gaps in recording of care tasks including repositioning people and providing fluids, therefore we were unable to be sure people’s care and support needs were met. Staff were suitably trained to meet people’s needs. Staff were receiving supervisions, but some staff did not feel fully supported.
People said staff were kind and caring. However, it was evident from the issues we found, the provider was not ensuring the service was caring overall.
People’s care plans were not person centred or updated to address people’s current needs. People spent long periods of time in their bedrooms and we saw very few activities taking place.
We have made a recommendation about activities.
Complaints and concerns were not dealt with in line with the providers policy. Two serious complaints that we heard about on the day of the inspection were raised with the provider who offered meetings to the families following our inspection.
The service was not always well led. The provider took immediate action and changes were made to the management team.
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 good (published 29 November 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements.
You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this report.
Enforcement
We identified breaches in relation to keeping people safe, managing complaints and good governance.
Follow up
We will request an action plan from the provider to show how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The home is located near to the centre of the town of Stamford in Lincolnshire. Residential and nursing care is provided and the home can accommodate up to 60 people who have needs related to the ageing process. There were 52 people living at the home at the time of our inspection. 19 Of the people were being supported to receive nursing care.
There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.
Staff were recruited appropriately in order to make sure they were suitable to work within the home. Staff were provided with an induction and training which was updated regularly to enable staff to further develop their knowledge and skills. At the time this inspection was carried out there were enough suitably deployed staff available to meet people’s identified care needs.
People and their relatives were involved in planning their care. Care plan records reflected up to date information about people’s needs. Staff delivered the care that was planned and kept people at the centre of the care giving process. They cared for people in a sensitive, warm and friendly manner, respecting their choices and preferences. The management of people’s medicines was conducted safely and in line with good practice and national guidance.
People had access to a range of healthcare services and were supported to enjoy a varied diet in order to help them stay healthy. There was also a range of equipment available to meet their needs and encourage independence.
People’s rights were respected and they were supported to make decisions for themselves wherever possible. Staff understood how to support people to make decisions and choices in line with legal guidance. CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves. At the time of the inspection none of the people who lived at the home were subject to a DoLS authorisation.
People had been consulted about their individual preferences, interests and hobbies. A wide range of activities were available which enabled people to be consistently stimulated and to maintain and further develop their interests and hobbies.
People and their relatives were invited to comment on the quality of the services provided. There were systems in place for handling and resolving formal complaints and the provider and registered manager took action to address concerns when they were raised with them.
The provider and registered manager had a structured framework of checks and audits to regularly assess and monitor care practice and to ensure people received good quality care. These ensured any shortfalls in quality could be quickly identified and any improvements made.