You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 January 2019

At our last inspection on the 10 and 11 May 2017, we found the service required improvement in all of the questions, is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. At this inspection we found there had been sufficient improvement to rate this service as an overall good.

The inspection visits took place on the 04 and 05 December 2018. Perry Locks provides accommodation and support for up to 128 adults with nursing care needs. The home comprises of four units, Perry Well House, Calthorpe House, Lawrence House and Brooklyn House. At the time of our inspection visit 110 people were living there. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The provider’s quality monitoring processes required some further improvement to ensure potential dangers were identified and requests for repairs were completed in a timely way. Some care plans were not consistently updated following professional visits. There were some gaps in the recording of medicines and administration of topical creams.

People were kept safe. Staff understood how to protect people from risk of harm. People's risks were assessed, monitored and managed to ensure they remained safe. Processes were in place to keep people safe in the event of an emergency such as a fire. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures to ensure suitable staff were recruited. People received their prescribed medicines when required by trained staff. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to hygiene and infection control.

People told us they received support from staff they felt had the skills required to support them safely. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were encouraged to eat healthily. People had access to healthcare professionals when needed in order to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff encouraged people's independence where practicably possible. People received a service that was caring and respected their privacy. People were supported by staff who knew them well.

People received a service that was responsive to their individual needs. Care plans were personalised and contained details about people's preferences and their routines. People were supported to pursue hobbies and activities that interested them and processes were in place to respond to any issues or complaints. Where people’s faith was important to them, they were supported to continue with following their beliefs. This included their end of life (EOL) wishes.

The registered manager understood their role and responsibilities and staff felt supported and listened to. People and staff were encouraged to give feedback and their views were acted on to enhance the quality of the service provided to people. People and staff were complimentary about the leadership and management of the home and said the registered manager was friendly and approachable. The provider worked in conjunction with other agencies to provide people with effective care.

Inspection areas



Updated 12 January 2019

The service was safe

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm because staff knew how to report concerns and processes were in place to support safe practice. People were supported by staff that had been safely recruited and they received their medicines safely from trained staff



Updated 12 January 2019

The service was effective

People were supported by staff that had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and support.

People�s needs and choices were assessed and personalised to meet their individual requirements. People were supported to maintain a healthy and balanced diet. People were supported to access healthcare services to ensure they received effective care and treatment.

People�s consent was sought by staff and they were involved in making decisions about their care. Staff understood when it was appropriate to

make best interests decisions that were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act.



Updated 12 January 2019

The service was Caring

Staff treated people with kindness and respect.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and support wherever possible and felt they could express their views.

People were supported to be as independent as much as possible by staff that respected people�s privacy.



Updated 12 January 2019

The service was Responsive

People received personalised care that was regularly assessed to include their interests, hobbies, cultural and religious needs.

People knew how to complain and processes were in place to learn and make improvements where required.

People�s preferences and choices were discussed to ensure the service supported people at the end of their life.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 January 2019

The service was not consistently well led

Improvements were required to the monitoring of care plans and medicine administration records to make sure they were up to date and accurately reflected changes.

Improvements were required to the provider�s maintenance processes to ensure when repairs and damaged items were reported, they were promptly repaired and/or replaced.

Staff were supported by a management team that had the skills and knowledge to encourage and motivate. People and their relatives felt involved in the developing of the service that worked in partnership with them, local community services and agencies.