Prideaux House

“Assessment date: 26 January to 6 February 2026. Site visits undertaken on 26 and 27 January 2026.”

“The assessment was carried out due to concerns received relating to people’s safety and the governance of the service and the age of the previous rating. Prideaux House is a residential care home providing accommodation for up to 20 older people including some living with dementia. At the time of our assessment there were 19 people living at the service. At our last inspection the service was rated good. At this assessment this has changed to requires improvement. The provider was in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and the governance of the service. People’s safety was not effectively managed. Accident and incident reports lacked detail and some were missing. There was no action to reduce the risk of recurrence and therefore no evidence of lessons learned. 6 safeguarding issues had not been identified by the registered manager and only later found by the area manager. Staff had not received training in supporting people living with catheters. The governance, management structure and auditing processes were not robust enough to identify and then learn from when things went wrong. There was a lack of oversight from the registered manager regarding auditing processes. Staff told us the registered manger was not approachable and there was a lack of opportunities to speak up. These issues had been recognised by the area manager and initial steps put in place to improve in these areas. Pre-assessments were carried out for people wanting to move into the service and were thorough. However, care plans lacked detail and had not been regularly reviewed. Food and drink preparation was well managed, however people did not always receive the support they needed when eating and drinking. Recognised clinical tools were used but were not monitored closely for changes. People’s mental capacity was assessed when required but there was little evidence of relatives or other professionals being involved in these decisions. People were not consistently treated with kindness and compassion and due to a high staff turnover, most staff did not know people well. Staff morale was poor and staff told us they were not supported to have a healthy work life balance. Care plans were not person centred with no personal history or current preferences recorded. Few communication aids were in place to support people, most of whom lived with dementia. No complaints had been recorded but we found evidence of issues raised that should have been recorded. There were no current activities coordinator and people often had little to occupy themselves. End of life training had been completed by staff but care plans were not clear about advance decision making. Care provision for people and working with other professionals was well managed. The service was well maintained and infection prevention and control were managed. Medicines were administered and stored safely. The registered manager did not always work well with other professionals but did support a diverse staffing team. People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as they could be and their immediate needs were responded to when they needed support. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.”