CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jasmine at Primrose
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found trained staff, suitable risk plans, enough staff on duty and safe medicines arrangements. The home was clean and equipment was checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans. Staff had relevant specialist training and worked with healthcare professionals to support people's health needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were warm, patient and respectful. They used people's preferred communication methods and supported privacy, choice and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's routines, interests and preferences. Activities were available, but one relative said there was not always enough to do at evenings, weekends or in bad weather.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Senior staff carried out checks, acted on problems and used feedback to improve the service. Improvements to activities, the menu and records were in progress.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Jasmine at Primrose was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements still being made.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 October 2019. Inspectors observed care, spoke with three relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training and management records. People using the service could not speak with inspectors because of their communication needs.
The home provides short-term respite care for people with learning disabilities and specialist healthcare needs. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, clean premises, personalised care plans and good support with health, eating, communication and independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 7 April 2017.
Safe staffing and medicines
The provider planned staffing in advance and carried out recruitment checks. Inspectors found that people received their prescribed medicines consistently and that staff were trained to administer emergency medicines.
“Our checks of stocks and balances of medicines and records showed people consistently received the medicines prescribed to them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, communicated in ways that suited them and gave them time to make choices. They supported people with dignity and encouraged them to do as much as possible for themselves.
“Staff were warm and friendly and constantly engaged and communicated with people throughout the day.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, routines, interests and communication methods. Staff understood these plans and adapted support to each person.
“People's records contained detailed information about them, their life history, their likes and dislikes, hobbies and interests” from the report
Good management oversight
Senior staff carried out regular checks and acted when issues were found. The provider investigated incidents and used learning to improve safety and care.
“Senior staff undertook regular audits and checks of key aspects of the service.” from the report
Activities were being improved
minorOne relative said there was sometimes little for people to do in the evenings, at weekends and when the weather was bad. The provider was recruiting an activities coordinator to improve this.
“A relative said activities for people could be improved.” from the report
Hand washing prompts
needs fixingPeople were not being encouraged to wash their hands before eating. Senior staff said they would remind staff to prompt people, to reduce infection risks.
“However, people were not encouraged to wash their hands before eating.” from the report
Unexpected death planning
needs fixingStaff did not always ask people and relatives what should happen if someone died unexpectedly at the home. Senior staff said they would change the assessment and planning process.
“Staff did not always ask people and their relatives what they would like to happen in the event of their unexpected death at the service.” from the report
Keeping relatives updated
minorA relative wanted more ways to receive updates about their family member during a stay, such as email. Senior staff said they would review how information was shared.
“One relative told us they would like to see the provider use more ways to keep relatives up to date” from the report
- 01What activities are now available in the evenings, at weekends and when the weather is bad?
- 02How do staff prompt and support people to wash their hands before meals?
- 03How do you now record people's wishes about what should happen if they die unexpectedly during a stay?
- 04How can relatives receive updates about their family member's wellbeing during a respite stay?
- 05What changes have been made to the menu and to the records shared with relatives?
This unannounced inspection looked at the premises and care provided and assessed all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised respite care, with some best-interest records still being completed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 and 12 April 2017. Two inspectors observed care, spoke with staff, the manager, relatives and health and social care professionals, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, risk assessments, incidents, complaints and audits.
The home supported up to six adults with learning disabilities and specialist health needs for short-term respite. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, detailed care plans and kind, respectful support. People were helped to continue their usual activities and families were involved.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors noted that some best-interest decisions had not yet been recorded where needed. The manager had identified this and was working to complete the records.
Enough staff
Staffing had improved since the previous inspection. A staffing matrix helped the home plan cover around people's individual needs.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treat people with kindness, respect their privacy and support their independence and choices.
“Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's communication, health, food, mobility, leisure and spiritual needs. Staff supported regular activities and personal interests.
“People's care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed to ensure staff had access to the most up to date information relating to people's needs.” from the report
Improving management
The manager was no longer managing two services. Staff said having the manager at the home full-time had improved support and teamwork.
“The registered manager was now only managing this service and staff told us this had resulted in a positive impact on the staff team and how supported they felt.” from the report
Some best-interest records incomplete
needs fixingInspectors found that best-interest decisions were not always recorded for decisions about care, medicines or bed rails. The manager said revised forms were being developed and the remaining assessments were being completed.
“However, we did not always find best interest (BI) decisions had been completed where required.” from the report
- 01Have all the outstanding mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now been completed, and can we see the records for decisions affecting our relative?
- 02How do you decide the number of staff needed for each person's stay, including when someone needs extra support to go into the community?
- 03What training was still outstanding at the inspection, and has all required training now been completed?
- 04How will you support our relative to continue their usual day services, hobbies and social activities during respite stays?
- 05How will you record and share changes in our relative's health, medicines, eating or support needs before and after each stay?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; inspectors observed care because most people could not describe their experience and reviewed four care plans and other service records. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Jasmine at Primrose
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 October 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.