Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Mr David Krishnalall Jangali

Priory Lodge

62 Priory Street, Colchester, CO1 2QE

Requires improvementpublished 16 March 2026, 5 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2023

Rated Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found kind staff but serious safety, care planning and management weaknesses.

Inspectors made an unannounced comprehensive inspection over 9, 11 and 16 October 2023. They spoke with people, staff and managers, and checked care records, recruitment, training, medicines and quality systems.

They found serious shortfalls in safety and leadership. Risk plans did not give staff enough guidance, fire safety and infection control needed strengthening, incidents were not always reported or investigated properly, and staff lacked important mental health and behaviour support training.

Staff were kind and the home had a friendly atmosphere. However, care plans were not personalised enough and people were not always involved in decisions about their care. The overall rating fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. The home is in special measures.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind staff

    Inspectors found staff were friendly and treated people kindly.

    Staff were friendly and approachable and treated people kindly.from the report
  • Welcoming atmosphere

    People inspectors spoke with were happy living at the home, and the atmosphere was described as friendly.

    People we spoke with were happy living at the service. The atmosphere within the home was friendly and welcoming.from the report
  • Access to healthcare

    People were supported to attend appointments with healthcare professionals, including specialist clinics and psychiatrists.

    People were supported to attend appointments with other healthcare professionals such as specialist clinics and psychiatrists.from the report
  • Some independence

    Some people could go out independently, and some had keys to their rooms.

    Some people went out into the community independently.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unsafe risk management

    serious

    Risk assessments did not give staff enough detail about how to respond to distress, prevent skin breakdown or manage other safety risks. Equipment and other items also obstructed a fire exit.

    Systems were not robust enough to demonstrate safety was safely managed, placing people at risk of receiving unsafe care and support.from the report
  • Weak management oversight

    serious

    The provider did not have reliable systems to monitor care, investigate incidents, learn lessons or drive improvement. This was a breach of Regulation 17.

    There was a lack of oversight and governance systems to effectively monitor the safety and quality of care provided and drive improvement.from the report
  • Insufficient staff training

    serious

    Staff had limited knowledge of mental health needs and had not received important training in areas such as de-escalation and positive behaviour support. This was a breach of Regulation 18.

    They had not received training in associated and best practice areas such as positive behaviour support, de-escalation, break away techniques and physical intervention.from the report
  • Care plans not personalised

    serious

    Care plans did not consistently describe people's strengths, goals, wishes, mental health needs or meaningful activities. This was a breach of Regulation 9.

    People's support plans were vague in relation to people's mental health, their strengths or abilities, wishes, aspirations and short and long-term goals.from the report
  • Infection control gaps

    needs fixing

    Cleaning checks and schedules were not effective, and some laundry and protective equipment arrangements created contamination risks.

    People were not always protected from the risk of infection as staff were not consistently following safe infection prevention and control practices.from the report
  • Privacy and involvement

    needs fixing

    People were not always involved in planning their care, and shared rooms did not have screens or curtains to provide privacy.

    Shared rooms did not have screens or curtains to provide people with privacy.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Which risk assessments and care plans have been rewritten, and how will you make sure staff follow the new guidance consistently?
  2. 02Has a suitably qualified person completed the fire risk assessment, and are current evacuation plans and emergency equipment now in place?
  3. 03What training have all staff completed in mental health, de-escalation, positive behaviour support and physical intervention?
  4. 04How are you now checking incidents, safeguarding concerns, complaints and accidents, and showing that lessons have been learned?
  5. 05How will my relative be involved in setting goals, planning activities and reviewing their care and communication needs?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; all ratings were assessed during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Priory Lodge

5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.

  1. December 2023Inadequatecurrent rating
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Priory Lodge

  2. March 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. December 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. October 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. May 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. September 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. April 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. March 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. November 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 2010.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Nearby

Other care homes near Colchester

Ewer Court

Colchester, CO2 · 0.6 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home

The Haven

Colchester, CO4 · 1.0 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home

Mercers

Colchester, CO1 · 1.0 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home

AYS Care

Colchester, CO4 · 1.0 km
Good
Residential
Rated 5 months agocare home