Primrose House

Updated 30 May 2025

Date of Assessment: 26 June to 14 July 2025. Primrose House is a care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 65 people. The service provides support to older people, some of whom were living with dementia and people with an enduring mental health condition. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people using the service.

At the last inspection we identified a breach of regulation in relation to management of medicines. At this inspection, improvements had been made, and the service was no longer in breach of regulations.

In late 2024 a new management team took over the operation of Primrose House Limited. In April 2025 they appointed a regional management team to oversee the service, and they were actively supporting the staff to ensure they always delivered the care and support people needed. There had been no registered manager since 2023 albeit several managers did come into post. When we inspected the deputy manager was overseeing the service and staff were positive about their management style and felt they had ensured improvements were made.

The building needed full refurbishment. The management team had closed the top floor in order to start this major redecoration programme. During the inspection they also started decorative works in the ground floor communal areas.

The new management team were ensuring the systems in place to encourage continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the service were always effective. The team had identified where the service needed to improve and were in the process of making changes. These changes were not yet embedded into practice. When we discussed areas to be improved the new management team immediately to address them.

Staff treated people with dignity and were considerate but at times the way they organised the dining experience and their ability to communicate with each other could have been better. The lack of co-ordination in one dining room led to staff being confused as to who they had served. At our 2nd visit this had been rectified.

]=Staff supported people to understand their rights and constantly made them aware of choices they could make. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated code of practice. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were appropriately submitted. We discussed improvements capacity assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions to more clearly detail any restrictions staff needed to put in place to keep people safe. The new management team took immediate action to address this.

Overall, medicines were safely managed. Staff worked with local healthcare professionals and sought advice when required. Staff worked as a team to ensure people’s support needs were met. Catering staff were actively working to ensure nutritious meals were always offered.

Staff completed mandatory and condition specific training. Nurses together to ensure they meet the Nursing Midwifery Council requirements for continued practice. The management team had introduced a comprehensive staff development programme, and this has initially been rolled out to managers. This includes regular hub meetings where all managers come together to engage in shared learning.

Updated 30 May 2025

Most relatives were complimentary about the staff team. Some relatives found at times staff needed to be more attentive towards people’s personal care. Relatives said, “There have been lots of different staff but its better in the last few weeks with not so many agency staff. At weekends there are only care staff, no managers.” And, “Since September I have never been asked to buy a bar of soap. We used to soak [person] top dentures in Sterident – that is never done, there is no oral hygiene practised. There is no personal choice about clothes and [person] wears the same stuff a lot of the time. There is no person-centred care.” Relatives also raised how over the last couple of years there had been a lot of changes to the manager, which was difficult as concerns raised with 1 manager often got lost when there was a change. They also found over recent years there had been times when they felt there were not enough staff.

People told us staff were very caring, kind and supportive. They praised staff for how well they worked with them and found the staff listened to their views. A person said, “I’ve been here three and a half years, it’s brilliant, everyone looks after you.” Another person said, “The staff are very good, but the place needs redecorating, I feel like I’m in a doss house.”

Relatives found staff were kind. A relative said, “The staff are kind and helpful and laugh with [person], they always ask what they want, and they are very respectful.” And, “The staff work very hard and have a lot of care for people. [Staff member] is one carer that knows [person] really well and they keeps me informed.” Staff ensured the quality of the care people received was good. A person said, “The staff are really nice, and we are well looked after.”

Where people had very limited verbal communication, we used a structured observation tool to assess whether they received good care. This approach showed people were listened to and staff interacted positively with them. Staff worked with people in a sensitive, caring and considerate manner. They understood how to support people to reduce any distress they might be experiencing.

People felt safe and their human rights were fully promoted. They were encouraged to make decisions. People told us they felt listened to and consulted around how their care and support should be provided.