You are here

Priory Mews Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 30 April 2020

About the service

Priory Mews Care Home is registered to provide support to up to 156 people. At the time of the inspection 126 people were living in the home. Priory Mews is arranged across five separate buildings called communities. Cressenor has capacity for 42 people and provides residential care for people living with dementia. Mountenay and Marchall communities provide nursing care to people with dementia and have capacity for 30 and 23 people respectively. Beaumont and Berkeley provide nursing care for 30 and 15 people respectively. There is a separate building housing administration offices, kitchen, reception and training facilities.

People’s experience of using this service

People’s experience of care was affected by staff not being effectively deployed. This meant they had a poor mealtime experience, and did not have many opportunities for engagement with staff. People’s dignity was not always maintained. People were supported by staff who had not always had the training they needed to perform their roles. There were inconsistencies in the level of detail about people’s medicines which meant we were not assured that medicines were always managed in a safe way.

The risks faced by people in receipt of care had been assessed but there was significant variation in the quality of risk assessments. This was similar with people’s care plans and records of care. People had been asked for their views but the level of detail in care plans varied which meant there were risks that people would not always get support in the way they wanted.

People were supported by staff who were knowledgeable about the different types of abuse people may be vulnerable to and knew how to report any concerns about people being abused. We saw incidents and allegations were recorded and investigated appropriately.

People told us and records confirmed staff knew how to support them with their healthcare needs, including their oral healthcare needs. We saw any concerns about people’s health were appropriately escalated. People’s care was reviewed regularly but issues with record keeping meant it was not always possible to tell if people had been supported in line with their preferences. There were inconsistencies in the level of detail about people’s preferences across the different communities, including whether people’s non-clinical preferences at the end of their lives had been considered.

People were not always supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives as staff did not consistently demonstrate they were working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and in people’s best interests. People’s consent to care was not always recorded.

People knew how to make complaints and we saw complaints were investigated and responded to in an appropriate manner. The provider sought feedback from people and their families in a variety of ways and acted upon the feedback received.

The provider and the registered manager were aware of, and working to address, the issues with the quality and safety of the service. The quality assurance systems in place had identified the issues with the quality and safety of the service. There was a comprehensive, robust and realistic plan in place to address the concerns. The registered manager and provider were open and transparent throughout the inspection and demonstrated they were looking to continuously learn and make improvements.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 8 March 2019). The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last two consecutive inspections.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to medicines management, staff deployment and training and dignity of people re

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 30 April 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 30 April 2020

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 30 April 2020

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 30 April 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 30 April 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.