Archived: Primrose Care Home

Updated 1 April 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive inspection. The inspection took place on 6, 15 and 20 February 2017 and all three visits were unannounced.

One adult social care inspector and an expert-by-experience carried out the inspection. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally required to let us know about. We also contacted the local authority commissioners of the service.

The provider completed a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with five people living at the home and three relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, a senior care assistant, two care assistants, a cook and a domestic staff member. We looked at a range of records which included the care records for four people and medicines records for 16 people. We also looked at a range of other records related to the running of the service.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We also observed over the lunchtime to help us determine whether people received the support they needed with eating and drinking.

Updated 1 April 2017

Primrose Care Home is a residential care home for 20 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. The home is over two floors with a communal lounge, conservatory and dining room located downstairs. There were 18 people using the service when we inspected.

At the last inspection on 9 and 18 February 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

At the last inspection we asked the provider to make improvements to care plans. We found this action had been completed. Care plans were personalised and provided information about the care each person required. They had also been evaluated to help keep them up to date. People’s needs had been assessed.

Improvements had been made to falls monitoring and other audits were being completed.

During this inspection we found the provider did not have a process for reviewing food and fluid charts. We have made a recommendation about this. Care plan audit records were not available during the inspection.

The home had a registered manager. People, relatives and care workers gave us positive feedback about the registered manager.

People and relatives said they received good care. They told us care workers were kind, considerate and treated them with dignity and respect.

People, relatives and care workers confirmed the home was a safe place to live. Care workers understood the importance of safeguarding people and knew how to use the whistle blowing procedure if required. Care workers confirmed they had not needed to use the procedure previously. Medicines were managed appropriately.

There were enough care workers on duty to meet people’s needs. Some relatives told us they felt night time staffing levels were insufficient. We carried out an out of hours inspection check on the staffing levels. We found care workers were usually able to meet people’s needs quickly. Care workers told us night time staffing levels were fine and the registered manager sought their views regularly. Health and safety checks were carried out regularly.

Care workers told us they received good support and had completed the training they needed. Records confirmed supervisions, appraisals and essential training were up to date. People were supported to meet their nutritional needs and to access the healthcare they needed.

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 had opportunities to participate in activities. These included outings to the garden centre, shopping, Beamish Museum and the beach. Where people chose not to take part their decision was respected.

Regular residents’ meetings took place and people had been consulted to gather their views about the home.

People and relatives told us they knew how to complain but did not have any concerns. One complaint had been received which had been fully investigated and resolved.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.