Primrose Hill Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion or respected their privacy and dignity.

We received mixed views from people and relatives about the care and support they received from staff. One person said, “The staff are variable, some are not quite so good”. A relative told us, “The carers are fantastic with my relation. I can’t fault the carers”.

The lack of staff available for people meant they were not always treated in a caring way. We saw 1 person who was cold ask for support and there was no staff available to respond to this. Another person was in the communal areas in their nightwear and no staff were available to support them to maintain their dignity.

However, staff spoke about people respectfully and compassionately. Staff emphasised the importance of being kind and caring.

The provider’s systems did not always ensure people were treated as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

People and relatives felt they were treated as individuals. One person told us, “My catering needs were not being met. The new caterer and manager changed things. They even took photographs of the food I like, and now I am getting the food I need”.

We saw that the staff on duty during our inspection knew people well and their individual needs. However, we found people’s care records did not always accurately record their individual needs and preferences. This placed people at receiving inconsistent care and support that did not meet their individual needs.

At lunchtime, we saw people were not always treated as individuals. People were not always offered the choice of wearing any aprons. People were asked what they wanted, and the food was put in front of them, without any variations. There was no salt or pepper on the table, and this was not offered to people.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives around independence, choice and control. People felt they could make day-to-day choices, including what they could wear. Some people and relatives felt there could be more to do in the home. The registered manager told us the activity workers were currently unavailable in the home and staff were completing activities with people whilst this was resolved. As staff were busy and unavailable to people, we saw people did not always have the opportunity to participate in activities they enjoyed.

We saw throughout our site visit that some people remained in bed. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us this was their choice. However, there was not always documentation in place to support these preferences, so it was unclear how some of these people had made these choices.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives on how responsive the service was to their needs. One person told us, “The food could be better. They can’t even fry an egg correctly and the toast is hard as rock.” They told us they had attended a meeting to discuss this however nothing had changed. A relative said, “They are very good at keeping me informed about her condition, they always call me if there is anything wrong. They speak to us when we visit and let us know what’s happening. They are very proactive and approachable.”

At lunchtime we saw people’s needs were not always responded to. We saw people had to wait for support and were not offered encouragement as reported on under staffing.

The registered manager told us they held regular reviews of people’s care to ensure they had the most up to date information about people. Although we saw reviews had taken place, they did not show how people and those important to them were involved with this process.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver care.
The registered manager told us about their workforce and how they considered their wellbeing. This included an employee assistance program and ambassadors for mental health and menopause.
Staff we spoke with during the inspection felt supported by the management team.