St Thomas' Priory

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service had previously been in breach of the legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment. Incident management had since improved, staffing levels were sufficient to keep people safe and meet their needs, and the environment had improved. As a result, the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

The service had previously been in breach of the legal regulation relating to dignity and respect. Staff now treated people with dignity, upheld their rights, and the provider had implemented several culture improvement projects focused on promoting respectful, rights‑based care. As a result, the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service had previously been in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance. Although several improvements had been made to the auditing process, governance systems still required further strengthening to ensure people’s care was consistently and safely monitored. The provider therefore remained in breach of this legal regulation.