Archived: Priestley

Updated 9 December 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 18 October 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience on this occasion had experience of working in a health and social care setting. Two inspectors also visited the home again on 30 October 2017. This visit was announced and was to ensure the manager would be available to meet with us.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed all the information we had about the service including statutory notifications and other intelligence. We also contacted the local authority commissioning and contracts department, safeguarding, infection control, the fire and police service, environmental health, the Clinical Commissioning Group, and Healthwatch to assist us in planning the inspection. We reviewed all the information we had been provided with from third parties to fully inform our approach to inspecting this service.

Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This information was used to help inform our inspection.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who lived in the home. We spent time in the lounge and dining room areas observing the care and support people received. We spoke with eleven people who were living in the home, five relatives and an external healthcare professional. We also spoke with the head of regional operations, the registered manager, two deputy managers, four senior care staff, three care staff and a member of the catering and domestic team. The registered manager was not present on the first day of our inspection. Therefore the registered manager from another of the registered provider’s care homes attended the home to support the staff with the inspection process. During our inspection we reviewed three staff recruitment files, five people’s care records and a variety of documents which related to the management and governance of the home.

Updated 9 December 2017

The inspection of Priestley took place on 18 and 30 October 2017. We previously inspected the service on 31 May 2016; we rated the service Requires Improvement. We found the registered provider was not meeting the regulation relating to the management of people’s medicines and staffing. Following the inspection the registered provider submitted an action plan detailing how they would make the necessary improvements. On this visit we checked to see if improvements had been made.

Priestley is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and 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. Priestley is registered to provide accommodation for up to forty people who require residential care. The home is purpose built and has a ground and first floor. There are bedrooms and a communal lounge and dining area on both floors. There were 40 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe, although we found one person’s moving and handling information was not reflective of their current needs and there was no record kept to ensure staff were aware of the correct settings for people’s pressure mattresses. There was a system in place to ensure the premises and equipment was serviced and maintained to reduce the risk of harm to people and staff.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. The procedure for recruiting staff reduced the risk of employing a member of staff who may not be suitable to work with vulnerable people.

Some aspects of medicines management needed further improvement. For example; one person had not been receiving their nutritional supplements, the location of pain relief patches were not consistently recorded on a body map and not all ‘as required’ or variable dose medicines had a protocol in place to ensure safe and consistent administration. We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines.

A programme of induction and shadowing was in place to support new staff. All staff received regular updates to their training and supervision throughout the year from a more senior colleague.

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 made positive comments about the meals. We saw people were provided with a choice of drinks, snacks and meals throughout the day. The meal time experience was calm and relaxed. However, one person was not receiving the food texture as recommended by a speech therapist and no further assessment had been requested. However, we spoke with a visiting GP who was highly complementary about the home and staff.

People told us staff were caring. Throughout the inspection we observed staff to be kind, attentive but professional. People’s care was delivered in a manner which respected their right to privacy, maintained their dignity and was centred around their individual preferences.

There was a range of activities for people to participate in, including trips out. Feedback regarding this was positive. Care plans were person centred and people and comments from a recent satisfaction survey showed people felt involved in their care plans.

Where a complaint had been received, we saw the registered manager had investigated the issues raised and responded to the complainant with their findings.

Staff and people who lived at the home spoke positively about the management of the home. There was a system of audits in place, completed internally and by senior managers, to ensure the quality of the service people received was continually monitored. Although the governance system had not identified the issues we raised while we were completing our inspection. Regular feedback was gained from staff and people who lived at the home.