Priory Care Residential Home

Updated 19 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of the Care Quality Commission’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 4 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 19 March 2021

Priory Care Residential Home is a care home that accommodates up to 35 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. On the day of the inspection there were 29 people living at the home. The home is situated in the village of Cottingham, in East Yorkshire. Bedrooms are located on the ground and first floors and there is a passenger lift to reach the first floor. Accommodation on the first floor is designed to meet the needs of people who are living with dementia.

At the last inspection in July 2016 we were concerned that care and treatment was not person-centred. We issued a requirement in respect of Regulation 9 (1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we saw that people’s care plans had been updated and that people received care that was based on their individual needs. The provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

At the last inspection in July 2016 we were concerned that staff did not act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) in respect of consent and making informed decisions. We issued a requirement in respect of Regulation 11 (1) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we saw that people’s records had been updated to reflect their capacity to make decisions and consent to aspects of their care. The provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

At the last inspection in July 2016 we were concerned that medicines were not being managed appropriately and that the emergency call bell had not been properly maintained. We issued a requirement in respect of Regulation 12 (1) (2) (d) (e) (g) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we saw that the management of medicines was safe and that a new emergency call bell system had been installed. The provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

At the last inspection in July 2016 we were concerned that there was a lack of maintenance certificates and risk assessments in place and that a high standard of hygiene was not being maintained. We issued a requirement in respect of Regulation 15 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we saw that equipment was well maintained and that the premises were maintained in a clean and hygienic condition. The provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

At the last inspection in July 2016 we were concerned that the provider had failed to maintain an accurate, complete and contemporaneous record in respect of each person who lived at the home. We issued a requirement in respect of Regulation 17 (1) (2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection we saw that people’s records were complete and accurate. The provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

At the last inspection in July 2016 we were concerned that CQC had not been notified about DoLS applications that had been authorised as required by regulation. This was a breach of Regulation 18 of the Registration Regulations 2009. At this inspection we saw that notifications about DoLS and other issues had been submitted to CQC, meaning the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

At this inspection we found there was a manager in post and they had been in post since the home was first registered. People who lived at the home, relatives and staff reported that the service was well managed.

Staff had been recruited following robust policies and procedures and people told us they felt safe living at the home. Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to make sure people received the support they needed.

People told us they were happy with the choice of meals provided at the home. People’s nutritional needs had been assessed, people’s special diets were catered for and food and fluid intake was being monitored when this was an area of concern.

Staff were kind, caring and patient. They encouraged people to be as independent as possible and respected their privacy and dignity.

An activities coordinator had been employed and people told us they were happy with the activities on offer.

Risks to people were assessed and reduced where possible. Staff received training on safeguarding adults from abuse. They were able to describe different types of abuse they may become aware of and the action they would take to protect people from harm.

People understood how to express any concerns or complaints and were encouraged to feedback their views of the service provided. We received positive feedback from everyone who we spoke with.

Staff told us they were well supported through supervision and staff meetings.

Quality assurance systems were robust and where they identified shortfalls in the service, actions had been implemented.