You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 25 February 2017

The inspection took place on the 12 and 13 of January 2017 and was unannounced on the first day. At the last inspection the service was meeting all of the legal requirements.

Primrose Road is a learning disability service currently providing support to six older adults.

The service is situated in a quiet residential area; the service is homely and spacious with a large outdoor garden to the rear.

Each person had their own bedroom. There were two bedrooms on the ground floor each with a sink and four bedrooms on the second floor and two of these had a private toilet and sink.

There was a registered manager at Primrose Road. 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.

People were protected from the risks of abuse as staff knew how to identify different types of abuse and who to report it to. Staff stated they would whistleblow if needed, staff said they were there to speak up for people and protect them.

Risk was also assessed to ensure people were not at risk of harm during moving and handling for example and other areas relating to their care. These assessments were clear and explained how staff should safely support people where there was a risk associated.

Medicines were handled and administered safely and senior staff performed competence checks before staff could administer medicines to people.

Safe recruitment was carried out and records confirmed that people were involved in the recruitment process during interviews. Further records showed that relevant checks on staff’s previous employment history and suitability to work with people with a criminal records check were performed.

The risk of infection was reduced as staff cleaned the service and used colour coded personal protective equipment to minimise the risk of cross contamination.

Emergency procedures were in place and staff demonstrated they would protect people in the event of an emergency.

Staff were trained in a number of areas to ensure they were effective in their jobs. Staff told us they felt supported in their role and records confirmed they received regular supervision and an annual appraisal.

People’s consent was requested before care was given and people were involved in making decision about their daily lives. Where people had been deprived of their liberty this had been documented and authorised by the correct supervisory body.

People were supported to eat healthy meals and staff were observed to support people who needed it in a dignified way.

People were supported by caring, kind and patient staff who were observed spending time speaking to people in a compassionate way.

People had care plans and these were personalised with goals set for each person. People’s family were involved in the planning process and invited to reviews. Staff were knowledgeable of people’s needs and met with people monthly during key working sessions.

Staff encouraged people to share their views and if they were not happy to make a complaint, complaint procedures were written in an easy read format.

A number of activities of people’s choosing took place and people were taken on annual holiday trips.

Staff spoke positively about the management of the service and that they could approach them when needed to discuss any issues relating their job role. Relatives felt they could easily approach management at the service.

The service had a number of quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 25 February 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff asked people if they had any concerns and would report any abuse to management or to outside agencies.

Risk was assessed to minimise the risk of harm to people and gave clear guidance to staff to support people safely.

Medicines were managed, stored and administered safely to people.

The risk of infection was minimised as staff used protective equipment during food preparation, the administration of medicines and during personal care.



Updated 25 February 2017

The service was effective.

People received support from staff who were trained extensively in areas to support people they cared for.

An induction, supervision and appraisal were given to staff at the service to monitor performance.

People were supported in making decisions and mental capacity was understood by staff.

People were given choices of healthy meals and fluids each day.



Updated 25 February 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate.

Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and spent time getting to know them.

People’s privacy, dignity and confidentiality was respected.

End of life wishes were discussed with people and their families and this was documented in their files.



Updated 25 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s care plans were person centred and contained individual plans of care and goals that had been set by the person.

A number of activities of people’s choosing were arranged for them.

People, relatives and stakeholders were encouraged to raise compliments and complaints. There was an easy read complaints policy in people’s care plans and this was discussed during house meetings for people.



Updated 25 February 2017

The service was well led.

Staff and relatives spoke positively about the management of the service.

The registered manager was available on site and could be contacted if they were at the providers other site.

Feedback was asked of people and their relatives to make improvements in the service.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the performance of the service and that care was being given as required.