Archived: Priory Close

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service caring?

We saw one service user being assisted to eat. We saw staff did this in a way which respected their dignity and the staff member supported the person in line with the person's care plan.

Is the service safe?

We saw the provider had policies and procedures in place for safeguarding people who used the service and how to respond to any emergencies that may arise. All staff were aware of where to locate them if need be. We were told by staff correct procedures for emergency situations and who they would contact. We saw evidence of an accident where staff appropriately sought medical advice.

Is the service responsive?

We were told by a relative a formal complaint in writing had been made recently to the provider. We viewed the complaints log and found no records of the complaint. The provider was unable to provide evidence of this complaint log on the day of inspection. This meant the provider was unable to demonstrate complaints were handled appropriately and were acted upon in a prompt manner. The service was found not to be responsive.

Is the service effective?

We saw some of the new care plans had a section called 'my memories' which included a list of the activities provided for people using the service in the past few months and included details of the activities people enjoy doing.

We saw some of the new care plans contained a section called 'my memories' which included a list of the activities provided for people using the service and included details of the activities people enjoy doing. We spoke with three relatives of people who used the service. The provider may find it useful to note two of them told us they thought their relative did not have enough activities. The other relative said they were unable to comment. We were told that one person had learnt cooking skills in a previous placement and had now lost all those skills because they do not cook at the home. We saw socialisation was planned but not in accordance with the person and their relatives. This meant that aspects of the service were ineffective.

Is the service well-led?

When asked two relatives told us they felt uncomfortable about raising concerns to the provider as they did not feel as though the provider would act. Both relatives told us they had raised 'Minor' complaints in the past and staff 'Never did anything about it'.

When asked the provider was also unable to provide us with evidence that the people who used the service had been asked about their views on the service or the care. The provider did not audit peoples' care plans nor did they audit their social activities. As detailed in Outcome 4 and 7 two out of the three relatives were not happy with several aspects of the service. The provider may find it useful to seek views in order to work with the people who used the service to improve the service and better meet the needs of the people. We saw the service needed to be better led.

People received a balanced and nutritious diet appropriate to their needs and preferences. One person told us there had always had enough to eat and drink and they had helped to buy their food and prepare their meals.

People's medication was safely stored safely and it was administered to them on time by staff who had received appropriate training.

People were supported by sufficient staff who were appropriately skilled, experienced and qualified. Discussions with staff showed they were knowledgeable about the needs of the people who used the service.

We found that there were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received.