Priesty Fields Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service. Whilst some improvements were in progress, the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to the Duty of Candour. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 61 (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 was working towards a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. However, this needed to be fully embedded.

Managers had started the process of improving the service. Feedback indicated staff had started to see some changes and felt better engaged. The consultant manager told us they were promoting a no-blame culture. This included being visible around the building, encouraging people to raise any concerns and following up with staff to highlight where improvements could be made. Staff meetings were being held where expectations were discussed.

A staff member told us they had seen some improvements since our previous assessment, they said managers would let staff know if things had not been done and ‘Followed up on things more’. Comments included, “We do flash meetings, they will come back and say what the outcome is and feed back to us. Feedback has improved.” However, feedback also indicated some staff did not always feel as included and communication could be further improved, especially for the night staff.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Improvements to the service appeared more evident since the provider introduced a new management team in May 2025. They had arranged for an external consultancy organisation to temporarily support the service to make improvements. A consultant manager, along with another of the provider’s registered managers and regional support team were put in place. We received some positive feedback from people, relatives and staff about the current management team. A relative told us, “[Name] is the new manager, and she is trying to improve things. She seems very positive about making the place better. In the past communication was not very good but that has improved as well.”

This was a temporary arrangement, and another new permanent manager and deputy manager had been recruited and were due to start, with a period of induction planned. The provider told us the consultant manager would initially continue to support the new management team. People and staff had been through several changes and the provider needed to ensure the further transition was effectively managed. They needed to ensure effective support; guidance and oversight was provided to build on the progress made.

During the assessment, managers were open about areas requiring improvement and the actions being taken. They were responsive to our feedback and took several immediate actions in response.

The provider had made some improvements to foster a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and provide feedback to managers. A staff member said, “We now have a structure, if I have concerns it will be actioned.” The provider needed to ensure this was further sustained following the planned management changes.

The provider had a centralised contact for staff if they needed to ‘Speak up or speak out’. Staff told us they now felt able to raise concerns through regular meetings or individual supervision meetings. Staff comments, included, “I have no concerns, if I did, I would report it” and “On a monthly basis we have meetings, staff have the opportunity to raise any issues.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff had undertaken equality and diversity training. Staff described team building and inclusion had been strengthened by new managers.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider’s governance systems had not ensured all regulatory and legal requirements were met. We found ongoing breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and safeguarding. Audits relating to medicines management had not addressed the issues we found during this assessment. Other requirements such as the need to display the location's current inspection rating on –site and visible signage to inform people that CCTV was in use, were not being met. This was rectified when we brought this to the provider’s attention.

Whilst the provider continued to be in breach of some regulations, we found other breaches of regulation had been met. Overall, there was an improving picture. The management team had introduced some changes, and new systems were being implemented. Managers had been addressing staff performance issues and were aiming to support an improved culture, feedback suggested staff felt there was better guidance and feedback to improve practice.

The provider was due to implement new auditing systems. These needed to be fully implemented, with the effectiveness monitored, to ensure they always identified and addressed any quality or safety issues.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

We spoke with 2 visiting health professionals during our site visit. They told us staff communicated well with them, and they had seen some recent improvements, such as staff being more proactive. Managers were working with various professionals to address the identified improvements required at the service.

The provider confirmed they were planning to ensure aspects of people’s electronic care records could be viewed and shared with their relatives, where appropriate to do so.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Managers gathered feedback from people and staff during their daily walkaround of the service and surveys were undertaken. Resident/relative meetings were now being held on a regular basis. The latest feedback indicated that whilst some improvements had been noticed, people wanted better visibility and communication from managers. The provider had displayed information in relation to improvement actions they were taking, such as ‘You said we did’ information.

Whilst the provider was now taking actions to learn and improve, effective governance processes to support improvement were not yet sufficiently robust and consistent. Further action was required to build on and sustain improvements identified during his assessment.