Archived: Primley View

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

One person we spoke with described living at the home as 'I am very happy here". Another person told us "All staff are very kind, it's perfect here'.

The service was safe because people had been protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to safely manage medicines.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and care staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

The Care Quality Commission [CQC] monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, policies and procedures were in place. The manager and care staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective because we found that people's privacy was protected at Primley View.

People's health and care needs had been assessed with them or their representative and they had been involved in compiling their plans of care.

We found that information had not been recorded and made available in the care plan file for a person recently admitted to the home.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. We spoke with seven people who lived at the home. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example; 'Always enough staff'. One person said "When I press my call bell I don't usually have to wait very long before someone comes to my room. I know there are other people who need their assistance as well so I take my turn".

When speaking with and observing care staff during this inspection it was clear they genuinely cared for the people they supported. They told us about people's health and social care needs and how these needs had been met in an individual way.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

We found that information had not been recorded and made available in the care plan file for a person recently admitted to the home.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive to people's changing needs. For example we saw that one person had been prescribed fortified drinks to supplement their diet when it had been noted the person had lost weight. We spoke with seven people who lived at the home. We saw from records that planned care and treatment had been provided in line with people's individual care plans. Aspects of people's needs or care had been linked to risk assessments. Specialist health needs had been identified where required and appropriate health care professionals had been consulted and involved in providing care.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well led. The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.

We saw there was an effective system in operation which had been designed to enable the provider to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the services provided. For example during 2014 the manager had sought feedback from people who lived at the home, their representatives and staff. The manager told us and people who lived at the home confirmed that their opinions about the running of the home were sought on a daily basis.

The manager had been employed at the home for nine months but had not yet applied to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. This was discussed at the time of the inspection. We were told that an application was expected to be made within two weeks from the date of the inspection.

In this report the name of the Registered Manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears on the report because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

We talked with four people who lived at the home, one relative and three staff. One person said 'They (the staff) are lovely. They are always there to help.'

We observed the interactions between people at the home and the staff. All the interactions were positive. Staff spoke to people in a kind and respectful manner.

We observed that people were well treated and their privacy and dignity was respected.

The people we observed appeared to be happy and relaxed. People were engaged in activities such as listening to music, quizzes and bingo.

We saw from the records staff made decisions for people about their care. We saw that staff used the principles of Mental Capacity Act 2005 and provided care and treatment that was consented to or made in the best interests of the people who lived at the home.

People told us they felt safe. Staff knew about different types of abuse and safeguarding procedures.

Staff told us they felt supported. Staff had received training and supervision.

The home had effective systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service. Records were well maintained, stored securely and accessible.

People sat in lounge areas appeared to be happy and relaxed and were engaged in activities such as watching television, listening to music and talking to staff.

We saw from the records that staff made decisions for people in relation to day to day care including personal care and significant decisions including resuscitation. It was documented that some of these people do not have capacity however there was no evidence of any mental capacity assessments or best interest decisions.

We found that some care needs were not being met effectively.