You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Updated 20 December 2017

Primary Integrated Community Services Ltd (known as PICS) had their administrative base at Ash Tree Court in Nottingham and provided a range of adult community services.

During a comprehensive inspection in April 2016, the provider was in breach of Regulation 5, of the Health and Social Care Act (2014), fit and proper persons. This meant the personnel files for directors did not include the evidence required to provide assurance of their suitability to undertake the role of director.

During our focussed inspection on 1 November 2017 we reviewed four, established, director personnel files and one, new director file. We found files included the information requirements for fit and proper person and we were assured Primary Integrated Community Services Ltd were no longer in breach of this regulation.

Additionally during our focussed inspection, we reviewed progress for areas identified as ‘ should improve’, which included addressing staff knowledge of Duty of Candour and training in safeguarding. We found evidence of improvement in both of these areas.

During our inspection, we spoke with three managers, reviewed five staff (director) files, and viewed electronic evidence of meeting minutes and training records.

Inspection areas


Updated 20 December 2017


Updated 20 December 2017


Updated 20 December 2017


Updated 20 December 2017


Updated 20 December 2017

Checks on specific services

Community health services for adults

Updated 11 October 2016

We do not currently have a legal duty to rate independent community health services but we highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve.

During our inspection we found:

There was a positive incident reporting culture with examples of sharing and learning from past incidents.

There was clear evidence of an open and honest culture with the patient being central in the planning of care provision by all of the community adult services provided. Staff were appropriately trained with regular supervision and annual appraisals.

Staff provided evidence based care and treatment and we saw positive use of information technology to support the treatment and care of patients.

Care was found to be individualised,flexible and highly regarded by both patients and carers. Patient feedback was psotive and we saw positive interactions between staff and patients. We saw examples of staff going the extra mile for patients.

The organisation responded to identified community need and had worked with primary and secondary care to establish an innovative community gynaecology service.

Staff were consistently positive about working for the organisation telling us they were proud of the organisation and felt valued and respected.

However we also found:

Not all staff knew about the duty of candour and how it impacted on their roles.

The nominated safeguarding nurse had not received safeguarding training to level three as per best practice. However at our unannounced visit they had commenced a level three course.

The organisation could not assure themselves they were meeting the regulatory requirements set down by the Fit and Proper Person Requirement (FPPR).