• Care Home
  • Care home

Primrose Lodge Weymouth

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

121-122 Dorchester Road, Weymouth, Dorset, DT4 7LG (01305) 786568

Provided and run by:
Primula Care Limited

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 30 April 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 7 April 2021 and was announced.

Overall inspection


Updated 30 April 2021

Primrose Lodge is residential care home registered to provide care for up to 38 people in a residential area of Weymouth. At the time of our inspection there were 32 older people with residential care needs living in the home. Some of the people living in the home had a dementia, other mental health needs or a learning disability. 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good.

The home has a registered manager. 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. Although the registered manager was away during our inspection we spoke with the deputy manager and the regional manager.

People felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard people from harm and abuse. They understood what signs to look for and how to raise a concern. The home had robust recruitment processes to ensure that the staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. People had risk assessments that staff understood and used to help the risk of avoidable harm. Medicines were managed safely and staff had formal observations to check their competency when supporting people with this task. The home conducted audits to ensure incidents or issues were recorded, resolved and lessons learnt to prevent things going wrong in future.

People’s needs and choices were assessed with their involvement. This included listening to them and noting aspects of their lives that were important to them and made them individuals. This diversity was acknowledged, respected and supported. People were supported by staff that had received training that gave them the skills and confidence to meet their needs. People were supported to have a balanced and varied diet. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. This included support to attend routine appointments or with visits from health professionals.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) and how it applied to the people living at there. The MCA 2005 provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. 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.

Staff consistently demonstrated a kind and caring approach towards people. Staff knew people well and respected them as individuals. People were consulted with about the care they received and were actively encouraged to express their views. People were supported to make decisions about things that could affect their health, well-being and quality of life. This included what they wanted to eat or drink, what they wanted to wear, and who and how they wished to spend their day.

People had their care needs met by staff who knew them well. The home had a complaints process. People and relatives were aware of it and had confidence if they raised a concern they would be listened to and timely action taken. Staff had experience of supporting people at the end of their lives. Relatives and health professionals spoke highly of when this had happened.

There was a positive, friendly and open culture at the home where everybody’s views were sought and considered. The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services including CQC and local authorities. Staff felt supported by management and their colleagues. Staff had regular supervision where they received both praise and had time to develop their practice. The home had established collaborative working relationships with health professionals which were helping people to stay well for longer. Audits and quality assurance processes were used to identify opportunities for service improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below