Priory Park Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care andtreatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevantchanges in people’s needs.

Each section of the care plans was completed with a person-centred approach; continence care was detailed and for 1 person, included the extra care needed if they experienced symptoms of a UTI (Urinary tract infection). Each care plan documented peoples likes and dislikes, and the activities they liked to be involved in.

Staff had good knowledge of people living in the home, a staff member gave an example of person-centred activities a person enjoyed including toys and dolls which were important to them. We observed these dolls being used to offer support when providing medication administration.

The home had a resident of the day which enabled care records to be reviewed and updated with involvement of the resident and relatives/friends where appropriate.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The registered manager confirmed staff covered shifts amongst themselves as the home had its own pool of bank staff. When using agency staff, they sought to use the same agency and staff members wherever possible. This promoted a continuity of care for people.

The provider supported people to attend community-based health appointments and welcomed health and social care professionals into the home.

The manager ensured that people received the correct hours to support them, this included requesting an increase in hours where needed but also the adjustment to reduce those hours where that was appropriate to the person. When one person became settled overnight his 1-1 hours were adjusted to 12 hours 1-1 instead of 24.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff were able to describe people’s different communication needs and we saw them communicate with people in their preferred way, speaking clearly, making eye contact and allowing people time to respond. Staff were able to interpret both verbal and non-verbal cues.

There were a service user guidebook and welcome pack in each bedroom, this was visual and included pictures and a larger text.

Staff had a good understanding of data protection requirements and information was stored securely on the digital care planning system, or in folders in a locked office

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There was a detailed complaints procedure documented in the service user guide, including other services that could be contacted if an adequate response not received to concerns. The service had an up-to-date complaints policy.

A relative told us, “I would go straight to [Registered Manager] and discuss my issues with her, she is knowledgeable, eloquent, helpful and friendly.” Staff shared that managers were visible and they could speak to them.

There were systems in place for people and their families to give feedback including surveys and a suggestion box. Feedback from the surveys was documented in an action plan which was laid out in the format of the CQC 5 key questions. Actions were priority rated, comments included and dated when they were completed.

Families did describe that at times it could be difficult getting in touch via telephone, the provider was looking into this for a solution.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The home environment was accessible via a lift, handrails, hoists, adapted beds and walking frames were available to reduce physical barriers to access.

We discussed with the home the colour of crockery in use and advised that coloured plates would be an advantage to those with Dementia.

There were arrangements for managerial support with the registered manager and deputy manager available out of hours, and a detailed business continuity plan in place.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

There was a positive culture within the home, staff spoke positively about people regardless of their support needs. Staff respected people’s protected characteristics and people could access care and support in a way that worked for them.

Staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion to support their understanding of inequality, the service had an equal opportunity policy available including information on dealing with discrimination.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Where people had shared their end of life wishes, these were documented and known by staff. This included DNACPRs. DNACPR stands for ‘Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).’ It means if a person had a cardiac arrest or dies suddenly, there will be guidance on what action should or should not be taken by a healthcare professional, including not performing CPR on the person. Some people had chosen not to discuss their end-of-life care, and this was respected and documented.

Staff had received end of life care training and could explain how they provided good end of life care, including how to support relatives effected.