Primrose Court

Updated 16 November 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check 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.

Primrose Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is not registered to provide nursing care. The home is a purpose facility with accommodation is in single rooms. At the time of the inspection there were 33 people using the service.

This inspection took place on 8 October 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed information available to us about this service. The registered provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed safeguarding alerts; share your experience forms and notifications that had been sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

During the inspection we spoke with three people who lived at the home and three relatives of people who used the service. We also spoke with the registered manager, the provider’s regional manager, two support workers, the wellness co-ordinator and the chef.

We observed care provided by staff during the inspection and the interaction between staff members and people who used the service. We looked at a range of documents including three care records for people who used the service, eight medicine administration records, four staff files, staff training and supervision records, and a range of audits and other management and meeting records.

Updated 16 November 2018

This inspection took place on 8 October 2018. The inspection was unannounced. This meant the provider was not aware we would be visiting the home.

At our last inspection we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Primrose Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is a purpose facility with accommodation in single rooms all of which have en-suite facilities. The home is not registered to provide nursing care.

Risks within the service were recorded, monitored and reviewed. The provider had a safeguarding policy in place and staff had an understanding of safeguarding matters. Sufficient staff were employed to support people’s personal care needs. Some people and relatives felt staff did not always have time to provide both personal care and engage in activities. Appropriate recruitment systems continued to be operated.

Medicines in the service continued to be managed and monitored appropriately. Staff had received training on the safe handling of medicines. The service was maintained in a clean and tidy manner.

People’s needs were assessed and care delivered in line with these needs. Staff had undertaken a range of training and had sufficient skills and experience to support people with individual care. People were supported with a healthy diet and specialist requirements were supported and catered for.

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. Family members were involved in decisions as much as practical. The environment was homely, warm and welcoming. People’s rooms were personalised.

People appeared happy and relaxed in staff company and we noted good relationships between staff and people who used the service. Relatives we spoke with praised the care and told us their relations were well looked after. Staff were committed to ensuring people received good quality and personal support. People were supported to make day to day decisions and were involved in care plan reviews. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and staff promoted and encouraged independence.

Care records contained information that supported staff to deliver care that met the individual’s needs, although the detail in plans could be variable. Care was reviewed and families were involved in these reviews. People were supported to access a range of events and activities. Concern was expressed about the provider’s move to a wellness model where all staff were involved in providing activities. The registered manager told us the new way of working would be reviewed. There had been one recent formal complaint about the service in addition to the concerns about activities.

People and families spoke positively about the registered manager who they felt was approachable and helpful. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and supportive. They told us there was a good staff team at the service.

Regular audits and checks were in place to monitor the quality of the service. Records were well maintained and up to date. Daily records were regularly completed although tended to focus on care tasks rather than the individual. The service was meeting legal requirements by displaying the current quality rating and submitting notifications to the Commission.