Background to this inspection
Updated
3 April 2019
The inspection:
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team:
The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.
Service and service type: This service is a care home. It provides accommodation and personal care to people living in the service on one site.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection:
We gave the service two days’ notice of the inspection site visit because we inspected on a weekend and we wanted to ensure the registered manager was present.
What we did:
The registered manager sent us a provider information return (PIR). Providers are required to send us key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.
As part of the inspection we spent time with seven people who received support from the service. We spoke with the registered manager, an assistant manager, six members of care staff, the activities coordinator and two relatives. We conducted a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We looked at three people’s care records and looked at three staff files including training and recruitment. We reviewed the service’s accidents and incidents’ file, audits and complaints policies.
Updated
3 April 2019
About the service:
Primley House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Primley House accommodates up to 39 people in one adapted building. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people living in Primley House. The home supports people with different needs and backgrounds, including people with mobility needs, health needs and mental health needs.
People’s experience of using this service:
•People spoke very highly of the care they received at Primley House. The service had strong person-centred values and placed people’s wellbeing at the heart of their work. People received exceptionally personalised support which met their needs and preferences.
•The registered manager was passionate about continuous improvement and implemented ideas and new ways of working in order to better people’s care and wellbeing. For example, the service had developed a relationship with the local primary school and the local nursery. This brought people a great deal of pleasure. The home also held regular fund-raising events, parties and fetes where people, relatives, staff and members of the public were welcome.
•People were fully involved in the planning and delivery of their care and encouraged to share views and make suggestions about the way the home was run. People were given as many choices as possible and were encouraged to have control and be independent.
•People were given access to a wide range of activities which met their personal preferences. Staff knew people well and were described as being kind and caring. Staff were provided with the training, supervision and support they needed to care for people well.
•The home delivered outstanding end of life care to people. The service was passionate about ensuring people received dignified and respectful end of life care which met their personal needs and preferences. The service had also created a memory garden to show respect for people who had passed away. Each time a person sadly passed, staff planted a rose in this garden to remember them by. This brought comfort to relatives, people who lived in the home and staff.
•Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and acted upon. During our inspection we identified some medicine stocks did not tally with the stocks recorded on people’s medicine administration records. However, following our inspection the registered manager conducted an audit of medicines and was able to assure themselves and us that people had been receiving their medicines as prescribed.
•People were protected from potential abuse by staff who had received training and were confident in raising concerns. There was a thorough recruitment process in place that checked potential staff were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable.
•The service had recently changed their care planning system from a paper to a digital format. We found people’s care plans contained clear information about their needs, but further improvements were needed with regards to the amount of personal information and preferences available. People were clear that staff knew them and how to care for them in the way they wanted.
•There was strong leadership at the service. People and staff spoke highly of the management team and there was a positive culture at the service with people and staff feeling their voices were listened to.
•There were effective quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. More information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (20 October 2016). It was rated Good in the Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led key questions and Requires Improvement in the Effective key question.
Why we inspected: This inspection was scheduled based on the registration date of the service.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about the service. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.