You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

We inspected the service on 31 October 2016 and the visit was unannounced.

Primrose Lodge is a residential care home and provides care for up to 15 people. There were 15 people were using the service when we visited and many were living with dementia.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in place. It is a requirement that the service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Relatives had no concerns about their family members’ safety. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm and to remain safe. The provider had procedures in place to manage incidents and accidents. These included seeking the support of health care professionals to reduce future occurrences. Risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed and reviewed. For example, where a person was at risk of damage to their skin, staff had up to date guidance available to them that they followed.

Staff that applied to work for the provider had checks on their suitability carried out before they started their employment. This included references from their previous employer. We found that the provider had employed suitable numbers of staff to meet people’s support requirements.

People received their prescribed medicines safely by trained staff who were assessed for their competency. The provider had made guidance available to staff on the safe handling of people’s medicines that we saw them following. This included staff storing people’s medicines safely.

Staff had the necessary skills and knowledge to offer effective care to people. Staff received training in areas such as health and safety and infection control. Staff received an induction when they started working for the provider so that they were aware of their responsibilities. Staff also received regular guidance and feedback from a manager to make sure they were offering care that met people’s care requirements.

People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were asked for their consent when staff offered their support. Where there were concerns about people’s ability to make decisions, the registered manager had assessed people’s mental capacity. The provider told us they would make improvements to make sure that these assessments always followed the requirements of the Act. The registered manager had made applications to the appropriate body where they had sought to deprive a person of their liberties.

People and their relatives were satisfied with the food and drink available to them. We saw that mealtimes were enjoyed by people. The provider had sought specialist advice where there were concerns about people’s eating and drinking. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. This included having access to healthcare services such as to their GP and physiotherapist.

People’s dignity and privacy was respected by staff who showed kindness and compassion. We saw that people’s care records were stored safely and staff spoke about people’s care requirements in private. People’s families could visit without undue restriction to maintain relationships that were important to them.

People were supported to retain skills to maintain their independence. For example, some people required extra time to enable them to walk and we saw staff offering this. Some people were involved in decisions about how their care was provided. Other people received the support from their representatives who were involved in making decisions about their care to make sure it was provided in ways that were important to people.

People undertook activities that they were interested in. We saw people

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm by staff who knew their responsibilities for supporting them to keep safe.

There were a sufficient number of staff to meet people’s care requirements. They were checked for their suitability prior to working for the provider.

People received their prescribed medicines in a safe way.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

The service was effective.

People received support from staff who had the necessary knowledge and skills. Staff received guidance and training.

People were asked for their consent by staff when offering their support. Where there were concerns about a person’s ability to make decisions, the provider did not always follow the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were satisfied with the food available to them and were supported to eat well. They had access to healthcare services when they required them.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

The service was caring.

People received care in a kind and compassionate manner. People’s personal histories were known by staff members.

People received the support they required to retain their skills and independence.

People or their representatives were involved in making decisions about how their care was delivered.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s representatives had opportunities to contribute to their family members’ care requirements. People received care based on their preferences.

People took part in activities and interests that they enjoyed.

People’s relatives knew how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 December 2016

The service was well led.

Staff were supported by the registered manager and knew their responsibilities.

People, their relatives and staff had opportunities to give suggestions about how the service could improve.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and the provider had checks in place to monitor the quality of the service.