Archived: Priory Alliance Care Limited

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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service.

This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Evidence showed significant shortfalls in how staff respected people’s dignity. Daily records were repetitive and minimal detail and with no indication that people’s dignity, comfort or emotional wellbeing had been considered and commissioned care calls were not met, However, staff gave us practical examples of how they respected people’s privacy. One person told us staff were kind and caring, a person said, "They help me with everything”.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care records did not include the personal information staff needed to provide responsive and person‑centred support. Staff told us they relied heavily on verbal instructions rather than written guidance. One staff member explained, “I was told verbally by the manager and from shadowing other carers. This meant staff did not always have sufficient knowledge to adapt their approach to each person’s individual situation.

Where people were supported to eat or drink, this was sometimes based on habit rather than the person’s own preferences. One staff member said, “We usually make [person] tea or toast, sometimes they accept it, sometimes they do not,” without evidence that staff explored or recorded the person’s wishes. This suggested staff made assumptions about people’s preferences rather than ensuring these were understood and respected

Daily notes and staff descriptions showed a task‑focused approach that did not always take account of people’s personal choices. Staff often described basic terms of care delivered with little evidence of support tailored to people’s preferences. One staff member told us they relied on family members to determine people’s choices, saying, “[persons] [family] takes control of all their choices.” Another could not explain key aspects of people’s health needs or how these should be met, stating, “I do not know if any of my clients have diabetes”. These examples showed that people’s own voices were not always sought or prioritised when planning or delivering care.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

There was no evidence that people were involved in decision‑making about their daily routines. Mental capacity assessments were incomplete and generic, and there was no record of best‑interest decisions where people were assessed as lacking capacity. Daily documentation did not reflect meaningful choice, and people’s care was shaped around staff routines rather than what people wanted. This meant people had limited influence over their own lives and were not empowered to maintain independence wherever possible.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Care plans did not contain accurate or sufficient information, which meant staff did not have the guidance needed to recognise or respond to changes in people’s health, comfort or safety. People who were cared for in bed had no repositioning charts or skin integrity guidance, despite being at high risk of pressure damage. Call monitoring showed staff often stayed significantly less time than they should have done, which meant care tasks were rushed, incomplete or not carried out. Daily notes lacked the detail needed to demonstrate whether immediate needs were identified, prioritised or escalated. As a result, people were exposed to avoidable harm and did not receive timely support.

The provider did not ensure staff were supported, competent or equipped to deliver safe and person‑centred care. Although staff were within their first three months of employment and formal supervisions had not yet been scheduled, there was no system in place to assess staff competency in key risk areas such as moving and handling or medicines administration. Staff files showed significant gaps in recruitment checks, training records and employment histories, and there was no evidence of structured induction for staff with no previous care experience.

Spot checks were incomplete, undated and focused largely on presentation rather than observing practice or assessing whether staff followed care plans. Staff described confusion about policies and were unable to explain essential areas such as consent, mental capacity or the medical conditions of the people they supported. This lack of oversight and investment in the workforce meant staff were not reliably equipped, supervised or guided to deliver safe, consistent or person‑centred care.

However, the registered manager spoke respectfully about their team, and staff told us they were happy working for Priory Alliance Care. While this indicated positive working relationships, it did not mitigate the systemic gaps in support, competency assessment and workforce development that exposed people to risk.