Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Priory Park Care Home, Penwortham, Preston.

Priory Park Care Home in Penwortham, Preston is a Nursing home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, dementia, diagnostic and screening procedures, mental health conditions and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The last inspection date here was 10th December 2019

Priory Park Care Home is managed by Four Seasons (Bamford) Limited who are also responsible for 29 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Priory Park Care Home
      Priory Crescent
      Penwortham
      Preston
      PR1 0AL
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01772742248

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Requires Improvement
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-12-10
    Last Published 2018-10-31

Local Authority:

    Lancashire

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

17th September 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We inspected Priory Park Care Home (Priory Park) on the 17 and 18 September 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced which meant the provider was not expecting us. We told the manager we would be returning to continue the inspection on the second day.

Priory Park Care Home is a 'care home'. 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.

Priory Park is in the Penwortham area to the outskirts of Preston. The home provides accommodation and support for up to 40 people with either nursing or residential care needs. At the time of the inspection there were 29 people living in the home, some of whom were living with dementia.

On the ground floor of the building was an office area and the home's hairdressing salon, laundry and kitchen facilities. There was a lift to both the first floor unit and to the second floor unit which was for people with nursing needs who were living with dementia.

The home was last inspected October 25 and 30 October and 2 and 8 November 2017. At that inspection we found there were six breaches of the regulations. The provider was failing to provide safe care and treatment in relation to mitigating risks and was not consistently supporting people with their nutrition and hydration needs. We found that the registered provider had not made sure they had all the relevant information when they employed people and did not have a comprehensive system of quality audit. We also found that the registered provider had not ensured that people giving consent on behalf of others had the legal authority to do so and that care was person centred in practice.

Following our inspection, October 25 and 30 October and 2 and 8 November 2017 the provider developed a plan to make improvements to the service. During this inspection, 17 and 18 September 2018 we found the provider had taken significant action to improve the quality and safety of the service. We found, at this inspection, that improvements were actively underway. These needed to continue to make sure positive changes were fully embedded so people received a consistently high level of care.

At the last inspection the domain of well led had been rated inadequate. At this inspection we found that the new manager had made significant improvements in the way the home was being run for the people who lived there. Quality assurance and audit systems were being used to monitor and critically assess the service's performance. The staff reported improved morale and that the manager was promoting a culture of improvement. The changes underway needed to show consistency in the long term.

Everybody we spoke with who lived at Priory Park said they were happy living there and that they could approach the manager or senior staff [nurses] “at any time.” People we spoke with told us they felt safe living in the home. There were procedures in place to minimise the risk of unsafe care or abuse. Staff knew the actions they needed to take and had received training on safeguarding vulnerable people. However, we asked the manager to raise an alert with the safeguarding team during the inspection. They did this immediately.

We found that there were some systems errors in the management of medicines and systems for managing medicines used at the end of life were not sufficiently robust. We found this to be a new breach of regulations.

We could see that the manager was actively recruiting new staff and that the permanent staff establishment was not at its optimum level. Staffing shortfalls were being managed using agency staff to fill gaps on shifts. The home was not taking any new admissions to try to mitigate risks to people using the service whilst recruitment and service improvement was underway.

People we asked told us that they felt they could choose when to get up and go to bed, or have

25th October 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We inspected this service on the 25 and 30 October and 2 and 8 November 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced which meant the provider was not expecting us on the date of the inspection.

Priory Park Care Home is located in the Penwortham area to the outskirts of Preston. The home provides support for up to 40 people with either nursing or residential care needs. At the time of the inspection there were 38 people living in the home.

The ground floor of the building was non-residential and was primarily an office area. The home’s hairdressing salon, laundry and kitchen facilities were also on the ground floor.

There was a lift to both the first floor, where people were supported with nursing needs and to the second floor, where people were living with residential needs.

The home was last inspected in October 2016 where one breach to the regulations was found for a failure to notify the CQC in the event of other incidents. These included allegations of abuse, serious injuries and any police incidents. We made recommendations at the last inspection for the home to ensure appropriate recruitment practices were followed and to ensure appropriate consent was gathered. We found on-going concerns in the two areas where we had previously made a recommendation. For this reason the provider has been found in breach of the associated regulations. We also found incidents that should have been reported to the commission at this inspection, as at the previous inspection, which has resulted in an on-going breach.

The provider forwarded the commission an action plan following the last inspection which we referred to as part of this inspection.The provider had a registered manager who was based at the home. 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.

When we arrived on site to conduct the inspection we found the home was partly being refurbished and redecorated. As a consequence on the first day of the inspection we conducted mainly reviews of paperwork and returned a week later to complete our observations. We returned to provide feedback and gather any additional information required when the registered manager returned from leave.

During this inspection we found the home was staffed by different job roles and different numbers of staff on most days. This may have compounded on the number of concerns found. We have made four recommendations throughout the report to address the concerns with the staff team.

We found records used to manage the day to day delivery of the service were not consistent and in some cases were inaccurate. Contemporaneous records are important to enable the home to evidence they are aware of the service required and can evidence the required service is being delivered. We have found a breach in this regulation.

We had concerns around the care files for the people living in the home. This included information held in them about how peoples’ needs and associated risks were assessed and how the records were used to show person centred care was being delivered that met peoples’ assessed needs. We have made two breaches to the regulations around risk assessment and person centred care.

We have also noted a breach about how the home was delivering support to people who were at risk of receiving inadequate nutrition and hydration. We found assessments were not consistent and action required to support people in this regard was not always taken.

We had concerns about how the home was managed. We found the home did not have a comprehensive quality audit and assurance system. We found audits were not completed as required and feedback received was not acted upon in a timely way. We have made two breaches to the reg

18th October 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This comprehensive inspection took place on 18 October 2016 and was unannounced. We last inspected Priory Park Care Home on 12 August 2014. At that inspection we found that the service met the essential standards we looked at.

Priory Park Care Home is part of the Four Seasons Group and provides residential and nursing care. Nursing care is provided on the first floor and residential care is provided on the second floor. The ground floor accommodates the administration team, laundry and kitchen facilities. The home can accommodate up to a maximum of 40 people. It is situated in a quiet residential area in Penwortham near Preston. At the time of the inspection refurbishment of the whole building was planned and work had commenced with the replacing of the lift that accessed all floors.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the (CQC) 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.

When accidents and incidents had occurred these had not always been reported to the appropriate authorities. We found that some of the incidents should have been reported to us (CQC) but the provider had not done so.

This is a breach of Regulation18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. The failure to notify us of matters of concern as outlined in the registration regulations is a breach of the provider's condition of registration and this matter is being dealt with outside of the inspection process.

When employing fit and proper persons the recruitment procedures of the provider were not always followed. We made a recommendation that the provider follows their own policy and procedures when employing people to ensure that all the checks of suitability made were robust.

Where the need for consent was required it was not always obtained from the appropriate person.

We have made a recommendation that the provider review their best interest decision making process to ensure it follows guidance outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 in order to gain the appropriate authority for consent.

Records to show that areas of cleaning in the home had been done were not always completed and we found some areas of the home had not been kept in a clean state.

People living in the home and visitors to the home spoke highly of the staff and were very happy with the care and support provided.

Medicines were being administered and recorded appropriately and were being kept safely.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people’s needs and promote people’s safety.

People were only deprived of their liberty if this had been authorised by the appropriate body or where applications had been made.

Staff had completed training that enabled them to improve their knowledge in order to deliver care and support safely.

People were supported to maintain good health and appropriate referrals to other healthcare professionals were made.

There was a clear management structure in place and staff were happy with the level of support they received.

People living in the home were supported to access activities that were made available to them and pastimes of their choice.

Auditing and quality monitoring systems were in place that allowed the service to demonstrate effectively the safety and quality of the home.

12th August 2014 - During an inspection in response to concerns pdf icon

We carried out this unannounced visit in response to some concerning information we had received about one person who used the service. We were informed that a member of staff had been distracted whilst administering medication to one person and another person who used the service had picked up the medication.

We had also been given concerning information about the staffing levels in the home and in particular, on the unit where people with dementia lived. We had been told that on given days, there had not enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

We looked at medication records and systems in place. We spoke with staff on duty and looked at documentation in people's care plans to ensure that correct procedures had been followed and people's human rights protected. We found that people received their medicines in a safe way and that their rights were protected.

We looked at the staff rotas for the days when we had been told that there had not been sufficient staff on duty. We looked at staff rotas for the day of our visit, as well as the weeks either side. We carried out a physical head count of staff on duty and observed care provided by staff. We found that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

10th June 2014 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask: -

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

We observed staff had a good understanding of the home’s safeguarding procedures. One staff member explained, “If I had any concerns I would inform the nurse, manager or area director and document this”.

Our discussions with staff confirmed they understood the needs of the people in their care. This matched the information we found in people’s care records. This meant the provider had protected people from unsafe care by ensuring care planning and risk assessment was appropriate.

Is the service effective?

We observed that staff had a good understanding of consent and related principals. This meant people were safeguarded against inappropriate care because the service gained people’s consent prior to giving support.

Documents we reviewed showed people’s changing needs were monitored and, where necessary, acted upon. Support plans and risk assessments were individualised and regularly updated. This meant people were protected against ineffective care provision because people’s changing needs were monitored.

All the staff we spoke with confirmed they felt supported in their roles and received frequent supervision and training. One member of staff said, “It’s good in helping us to understand what we’re doing with care, for example”. This demonstrated staff were enabled to deliver care safely because the manager had ensured they were adequately supported.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with people and their relatives to gain an understanding of their experiences of the support they received. Their response was positive. A relative told us, ““I commend the staff for their tolerance and, indeed, kindness for the care of my daughter”.

Staff explained that they worked in a caring and friendly manner. They described being respectful to and working with people to understand their needs. One staff member told us, “It’s brilliant here. I like that I can build up relationships with people”. This showed people were safeguarded against inappropriate care provision because staff understood people’s individual needs.

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs were properly assessed, monitored and reviewed. This meant the provider had continuously assessed whether the service was able to maintain people’s care levels. One staff member told us, “We’ve built up a brilliant relationship with our GPs now. We assess each individual person to check what we can manage or where we need to call out the GP”.

Care records we reviewed evidenced that where people’s needs changed, care planning was amended to incorporate these changes. This demonstrated the home had minimised the risks of unsafe care because the service had responded to people’s changing needs.

Is the service well-led?

Priory Park had a range of quality audits in place. Other regular processes underpinned this, such as staff supervision and team meetings. This meant people were protected against inappropriate care because the manager had systems to check the quality of care.

Staff told us they felt the service was well-lead. One staff member told us, "The managers are very flexible and approachable. This is important as it bounces down the line. If the staff are happy so are the residents".

10th January 2014 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

At our last visit to Priory Park in September 2013 we found that accurate and appropriate records had not been maintained. During this visit we found a number of improvements had been made.

Staff told us they had received additional training regarding care plan documentation and that they understood the care plans and their responsibilities. One member of staff said, "Carers feel more involved (with records). It's been made clear to us now what we have to record and we know the day to day information we get is very valuable".

We viewed a sample of three care plans. We found these were accurate, up to date, and fit for purpose. The staff we spoke to understood the content of the plans and were able to demonstrate how to find relevant information. One member of staff told us, "I'm confident in our care records now, they're up to date, everyone understands and it is clear. Training definitely helped".

5th April 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We observed good examples of care where people’s dignity and independence was respected. We also observed practices were people’s privacy was not respected and we heard the use of some disrespectful terminology.

We found that people’s needs were assessed and care plans were in place. One person said, “I have a care plan. They discuss it with me and I sign it.” We found inconsistent and incomplete care information for one area of care.

People had their nutritional needs assessed and monitored. Specialist advice and support was sought in response to identified risks. People had access to a choice of food and drinks.

We found that suitable and safe medicines storage arrangements were in place. We found that some medicines records were not completed properly.

We saw that some areas of the home were unclean and some areas were in need of repair and upgrade.

There was a range of suitable equipment in place to assist in meeting peoples’ needs.

Some people who used the service and relatives told us they was not enough staff to meet their needs properly. Two people told us they could not always have a shower when they wanted. We saw that some people who lived on the dementia unit were left unattended for short periods of time. The provider was unable to show us how they knew there were sufficient numbers of care staff to meet people’s needs at all times.

Arrangements were in place to monitor the quality of the service.

23rd May 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

During the course of the visit we spoke to people who were living at Priory Park, their relatives and members of staff.

The residents and relatives spoke positively about the home and said that they were kept informed about what was happening to them. We were told that the staff at the home were helpful and caring.

"They even changed the layout of the bedroom around so that I could watch my television in bed"

People spoke about the plans and preparation that were being made within the home for the up and coming celebration of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee.

Due to their mental health or dementia symptoms some of the people living at the home were less able to clearly express their views.

1st January 1970 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

During our inspection at Priory Park we looked at outcomes where we found the provider was non-compliant at our last inspection in April 2013. We found that, on the whole, improvements had been made.

People told us that they were treated well by staff and that they were happy with the care they received. Comments included, “I’m happy here, I’m looked after and there’s plenty going on.” Another person said, “No problems. Things seem much better now”.

We observed staff talking to and treating people with kindness and respect.

We found the home to be clean and free from odour. Areas of the home which had been identified as in poor repair had been rectified by the provider.

During this inspection we found staff were aware of information relating to specific dietary requirements and that this was recorded.

However, we found that the records held in relation to people's care and welfare were, in some cases, incomplete and confusing. This matter had been raised recently during a safeguarding investigation and by other professionals.

There were twenty seven people living at the home at the time of our inspection. We judged that based on this that the amount of staff employed by the service was sufficient. We would expect that if the amount of people living at the home, or the dependency level of the people there increased, that the provider should implement suitable systems to meet the increased demand.

 

 

Latest Additions: