Primrose Hill Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The information recorded in people’s care plans was not always accurate and individual. For example, we saw numerous people remaining in bed for the duration of our site visit. Some of these people were unable to tell us about their experience. The registered manager told us this was people’s preferences, however the care plans in place did not always reflect this.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about their involvement in the review process. Although relatives felt updated, no one could confirm they had attended or been involved with any recent reviews.

Staff felt they were aware of people’s individual needs and preferences and delivered care to people aligned with these.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives. A relative told us, “She needs to integrate more, but in the lounge, you only have 1 carer, if that”. A person told us the care they received was consistent, as staff knew their needs well.

As care plans and risk assessments were not always accurate or sufficiently detailed, we could not be assured that people received consistent care. There was a system in place to monitor and review care however as it was not always planned for and care records were reviewed randomly, we could not be assured it was effective.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives were happy with how information was provided to them.

The provider shared that information was available to people in different formats if they required this. We saw there was references to how people communicated in their care plans. Staff confirmed to us they were aware of these plans.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People told us they knew how to raise concerns. However, we received mixed feedback on how concerns were responded to. One person said, “They don’t always listen to me.” Another person told us they had been listened to and changes made when they had shared some concerns.

There were no records to show how people and those important to them were currently involved with their reviews of care.

The registered manager told us people had recently had the opportunity to complete questionnaires, and they were in the process of analysing this information. A ‘you said we did board’ had been introduced in the home which showed improvements people had requested, and the action taken.

There was a system in place to ensure complaints were responded to in line with the provider’s own policy and procedure. The provider had responded to complaints in line with their procedure by investigating concerns and sharing an outcome with the complainant.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and relatives raised no concerns with the access they had to other health professionals.

The provider told us they worked alongside external agencies whom they could engage with if needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

On the ground floor we saw areas of the home had been considered when people were living with dementia, for example there was signage and furnishings such as different colour doors which helped people to navigate their home environment. On the other floors where people were also living with dementia this had not been considered. We therefore could not be assured people always received equitable experiences. Furthermore, we also found care plans were not always up to date, and they did not always reflect changes or preferences, which placed people at risk of not receiving an equitable experience.

However, some staff were aware of potential inequalities people receiving support may face and considered how protected characteristics may impact their care experience.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

End of life care plans were in place for people when needed. These had considered people’s choices and preferences during this time. Staff had received training in this area and were able to tell us about this.