We carried out a review of the data available to us about Primrose Croft Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Primrose Croft Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice:
A purpose-built screen had been created and used to form a visiting pod at the home’s main entrance. This allowed people and their family members to visit each other safely.
The provider had purchased two computer tablets to allow people and their friends and family to keep in touch virtually.
The provider had purchased pulse oximeters and had trained staff in their use so they could better monitor people’s oxygen saturation levels if needed.
Primrose Croft Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 38 older people, some of
whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, 32 people were living at the service.
People’s experience of using this service:
Staff worked well together to ensure people were safe and well cared for. They knew the people they cared for well and understood, and met, their needs. People were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained and confident to recognise and report any concerns. Staff assessed and minimised any potential risks to people. Staff followed the provider’s procedures to prevent the spread of infection and reduce the risk of cross contamination. The provider had systems in place to enable staff to safely manage people’s medicines.
The provider had systems in place to make sure they only employed staff once they had checked they were suitable to work with people who used the service. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. The registered manager reviewed staffing levels and people's needs regularly. People received care from staff who were trained and well supported to meet people’s assessed needs.
Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink and maintain a healthy weight. They worked well with external professionals to support people to keep well.
The service had a ‘homely feel’. Some rooms had been recently redecorated and looked nice. However, other areas of the service looked tired with chipped, scuffed, and badly worn paint work and furniture varnish. The provider had an ongoing refurbishment programme for the building.
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. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.
Staff supported people in a caring and friendly way. Staff were respectful when they spoke with, and about, people. Support was person-centred and met each person’s specific needs. People and their relatives were involved in care reviews.
People’s care plans were detailed and provided staff with guidance on how to meet each person’s needs. People’s needs were reviewed, and their care was adapted as required. Staff supported people to express any wishes they had for their end of life care and followed these.
People and their families felt able to raise concerns which the provider addressed. The provider had systems in place, including a complaints procedure, to deal with any concerns or complaints. The provider and registered manager promoted a culture that was person-centred. The provider had put robust systems in place to effectively monitor the service and bring about further improvement. The service worked well with external health and social care professionals
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this service was Good (published 2 June 2017).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This unannounced inspection was carried out on 3 May 2017. At the last inspection on 21 May 2015 the service was rated as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.
A registered manager was in post. 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 told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures to ensure that people were protected from harm. Staff were also aware of whistleblowing procedures and would have no hesitation in reporting any poor care. People’s medicines were safely administered.
There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff employed at the home. The provider’s recruitment process ensured that only staff deemed suitable to work at the home were employed. Staff did not commence working in the home until all pre-employment checks had been satisfactorily completed.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that the registered manager and all staff were knowledgeable about when a request for a DoLS would be required. The registered manager had submitted DoLS applications to ensure a person was only deprived of their liberty to ensure their safety. People who had limited capacity to make decisions were supported with their care and support needs in their best interests.
Staff respected and maintained people’s privacy at all times. People were provided with care and support as required and people did not have to wait for long periods of time before having their care needs met. This meant that people’s dignity was respected and met in a timely manner.
People’s care and support needs were planned, detailed reviewed and met by staff who had a good understanding of how and when to provide people’s care whilst respecting their independence and choices.
People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. This included a GP, hospital appointments and visits from district nurses and community psychiatric nurses. People were consistently supported with their health care needs in a timely manner. Risk assessments were in place to ensure that people were safely supported with potential health risks.
People were provided with a varied menu and had a range of healthy options to choose from including those who required a specialist diet. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks available at all times.
People’s care was provided by staff in a caring and compassionate way. People’s hobbies and interests had been identified and were supported in a way which always involved people to prevent them from becoming socially isolated.
The home had an effective complaints procedure in place Prompt action was taken to address any concerns that had been raised.
People were provided with several ways they could comment on the quality of their care. This included regular contact with the registered manager, staff and by completing quality assurance surveys.
Primrose Croft Care Centre is registered to provide non-nursing care for up to 38 older people, some of who live with dementia. The home, which is located near to the city centre of Cambridge, is divided into two floors. Access to the first floor is by stairs or a passenger lift. When we visited there were 35 people living at the home.
The inspection was unannounced and was carried out by one inspector.
A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. The home’s registered manager has worked in this role for 11 years. 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.
We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 10 March 2015. A breach of a legal requirement was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirement in relation to safeguarding people from unlawful restrictions.
We undertook this focused inspection on 21 May 2015 to check that the provider had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirement.
This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Primrose Croft Care Centre on our website at www.cqc.org.uk
At our focused inspection on the 21 May 2015, we found that the provider had followed their plan which they had told us would be completed by the 30 March 2015 and the legal requirement had been met.
People were supported in making day-to-day decisions about their care which included taking their medicines, choosing what they would like to eat, when to get up and go to bed and if they wanted to go out. People were not subjected to unlawful restrictions; assessments had been carried out which were based on the five key principles of the Mental Capacity 2005. People who were assessed not to have mental capacity were supported in the best interest decision making process. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications had been made and the provider was waiting for the outcome of the local authority supervisory body’s decision.
Primrose Croft Care Centre is registered to provide accommodation and non-nursing care for up to 38 people, some of whom live with dementia. The home offers both short and long-term stays. At the time of our visit there were 33 people living at the home.
The home, which is situated in a residential suburb of the city of Cambridge, has enclosed gardens. The ground and upper floors are accessible by means of stairs or a passenger lift. There is a hairdressing room, communal lounges and ten of the bedrooms are provided with en suite facilities.
The inspection took place on 10 March 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection was carried out on 26 June 2014 when the provider had met the regulations that we inspected against.
A registered manager was in post when we inspected the home. 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 safe living at the service as staff were knowledgeable about reporting any abuse. There were a sufficient number of staff employed and recruitment procedures ensured that only suitable staff were employed. Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were protected with the safe management of medication. Minor improvements were needed in relation to the recording and storage of controlled drug medication.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS applications had not been made to ensure that people’s rights were protected. Staff were supported and trained to do their job. People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. Health risk assessments were in place to ensure that people were supported to maintain their health. People were provided with adequate amounts of food and drink to meet their individual likes and nutritional and hydration needs.
People’s privacy and dignity were respected and their care was provided in a caring and compassionate way.
People’s hobbies and interests had been identified and a range of in-house facilities and activities supported people with these. A complaints procedure was in place. No complaints had been received. People could raise concerns with the staff at any time.
The provider had quality assurance processes and procedures in place to improve, if needed, the quality and safety of people’s support and care. A staff training and development programme was in place and procedures were in place to review the standard of staff members’ work performance.
During our inspection we identified a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponds to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Is the service safe?
Risk assessments were in place to minimise any potential harm to people using the service. Care staff understood their roles and responsibilities in making sure people were protected from harm. There were effective safeguarding procedures in place to ensure that people were protected from abuse and harm. We saw that Deprivation of Liberty (DoLs) assessments were carried out where necessary to ensure that people who could not make decisions for themselves were protected.
Is the service effective?
The care staff we met were knowledgeable about people's individual care and support needs. Observations we made during our inspection confirmed that the care staff provided friendly and attentive support when assisting people during the day. People were assisted to make choices regarding how they wished to spend time during the day.
Is the service caring?
Observations made during our inspection showed that people received warm, consistent and respectful support from care staff and they were enabled to make choices and changes when required. One person told us that 'I like living here and the staff help me with whatever I need.' Staff told us that they were well supported and supervised by the manager and senior staff so that they could provide safe care and support to people.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that people's personal care and social support needs were assessed and met. This also included people's individual choices and preferences as to how they liked to be supported. We observed and saw from the records that people could make changes to their support and had been involved in the regular reviews of their support plans as much as possible.
Is the service well led?
The home was effectively managed and staff told us that they felt well supported and were regularly trained to safely provide care and support. Observations made during our inspection showed that staff were enthusiastic, friendly and attentive so that people were supported consistently and safely. Health and safety checks were in place to monitor the services provided. The home gathered opinions from people who used the service, healthcare professionals and staff to identify any improvements that could be made and where practicable, acted upon these suggestions.
People we spoke with said that they were happy living in the home and that it was nice and clean. One person said, "Staff wait on me hand and foot and are very nice". A relative told us that his mother, "Gets the support she needs and can have a bath when she wants to", which he said was important to her and was what she preferred. Another relative told us that staff, "Got the balance right", encouraging his aunt's involvement but respecting her wishes if she wanted to spend time on her own.
We spoke with the district nurse who told us that, "Staff were dedicated and hardworking" and that the, "Food seems good, not too fancy and that's what people like".
One relative said, "Mum is safe here and I know they will contact me if she needs anything at all". Another relative said that the manager encouraged complaints and wanted to know about people's concerns.
People we spoke with said that they were happy living in the home and made positive comments about the care that they received. One person told us that, 'The manager is champion". A visitor told us that they had no concerns with the care provided and that staff were good at highlighting the need for nursing assistance. Another visitor told us, 'I would be happy for my mother to stay here.'
We spoke with the district nurse who told us she was very happy in the way that the staff were managing a person who had a pressure sore and that it was healing well. We spoke with five people's relatives who told us that the staff kept them informed about issues affecting their family member and that they were involved in their family member's review of care.
One relative said, 'Mum really likes the place, she has improved no end and she is so glad that she came here.' Another relative said, 'The manager is so wonderful, she has an incredible ability with dealing appropriately with people with dementia and instantly puts them at ease in whatever situation arises.' We asked about the time it took for staff to respond to call bells and two people told us that they rarely waited for longer than a few minutes. We spoke with people about the activities that were available. Everyone knew that there was a programme of activities which took place and told us about some of the ones that were provided. These included visits out for a pub lunch, visits to local gardens and garden centres. At the time of our visit some people were seen preparing to go out for a pub lunch.