Primrose Hill Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment were effective.

We saw there were assessments completed with people and families where appropriate, before they started using the service. These assessments were used to create a care plan that met people’s assessed needs; however, we could not be assured these assessments were always effectively used to deliver consistent care as some people did not always have accurate and up to date care plans in place that reflected all their needs.

The provider did not always follow up to date guidance in relation to supporting people with a learning disability and dementia.

The provider was unable to evidence they had considered or followed evidence-based guidance for people with a learning disability. When people had a learning disability there was limited information about this in people’s care plans. For 1 person the language used in the care plan was derogatory. Right support, right care, and right culture guidance was not followed for these people, which meant people did not always receive care and support that met their needs or promoted good health and wellbeing outcomes.

As reported on in equity in experiences and outcomes, when people were living with dementia, the provider had not always ensured an equitable experience. Furthermore evidence-based care was not always considered for these people. Although some people had care plans in place stating they had dementia, the provider had not always considered how they would implement person centred interventions based on the most up to date evidence to ensure these people had positive care outcomes.

However, the clinical lead told us they had a system in place which used evidence-based tools to assess other elements of people’s needs. A variety of assessment tools were available if needed to ensure people’s needs were identified and met. Staff were aware of these outcomes to ensure they delivered the correct care that people needed.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

People and relatives felt the staff team worked well together.

We saw that staff worked well together, this included sharing information about people through daily notes and attending staff meetings and daily meetings (Flash) where people’s needs were discussed. The registered manager also told us information about people was shared with staff through an app. There was a system in place to ensure the staff team worked alongside other professionals to deliver care to people.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control.

People and relatives confirmed health needs were responded to by staff who were aware of people’s health needs and the support they may need. People’s health needs were assessed, and plans were in place to monitor these conditions.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

As care plans and risk assessments were not always reflective of people’s needs, reviewed or up to date, the systems in place to review and monitor care for people were not always effective.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place when needed to ensure the Mental Capacity Act was applied. Staff had received training in this area and were aware of the processes to follow.