CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Primley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, staffing and recruitment were considered safe, but some boxed medicine stocks did not match the records, so the manager carried out a full audit after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff were trained and supported, and food and consent arrangements met people's needs. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care, and their independence, privacy, diversity and personal choices were supported.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised and flexible. People had a wide range of activities, links with the local community and exceptionally supportive end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had strong leadership, an open culture and quality checks. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback and influence how the home was run.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, highly personalised care, with outstanding responses to people's individual needs and some medicines and care-record checks to improve.
Inspectors visited on 3 March 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff, observed care, and checked care records, staff files, medicines, accidents, audits and complaints.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive. People said they felt safe, well cared for and listened to, and staff knew their needs and preferences well.
Inspectors found a medicine stock recording problem and said care plans needed more personal information and preferences. The manager audited the medicines after the visit and provided further care-plan information. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good.
Personalised care
Staff knew people's personalities, interests and preferences. People were involved in planning their care and were encouraged to make choices and remain independent.
“People received exceptionally personalised support which met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could choose from varied activities and events. The home also worked with local schools, a nursery and a college to help people stay connected with the wider community.
“People were supported to take part in a range of activities to provide them with stimulation, entertainment, socialisation and ensure they were part of the wider community.” from the report
End of life care
Inspectors found end of life care to be outstanding. The home supported personal wishes, welcomed loved ones to stay overnight and created a memory garden.
“The home delivered outstanding end of life care to people.” from the report
Supportive culture
People and staff spoke positively about the management team. Staff felt listened to and received training and support for their roles.
“There was strong leadership at the service. People and staff spoke highly of the management team” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome boxed medicine stocks did not match the amounts recorded on medicine administration records. The manager completed a full audit after the inspection and said a digital system was being introduced.
“However, we found some boxed medicine stocks did not tally with the stocks recorded on their medicine administration records (MAR).” from the report
Care-plan detail
needs fixingThe new digital care-planning system contained clear information about people's needs, but inspectors said it needed more personal information and preferences. Further information was provided after the inspection.
“Further improvements were needed with regards to the amount of personal information and preferences available.” from the report
- 01How are medicine stocks checked now, and how has the planned electronic medicines system changed practice?
- 02How do you make sure each person's care plan includes their personal history, preferences and what matters to them?
- 03How are residents involved in choosing and reviewing activities?
- 04How would you support a relative who wanted to stay overnight during a person's final days?
- 05How are people's views and complaints recorded, acted on and fed back to them?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; the previous Effective rating of Requires Improvement changed to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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, October 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the Effective rating Requires Improvement because consent and staff supervision records were not always complete.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 6 September 2016. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, policies and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems and good safeguarding arrangements. People were treated with kindness and respect. Care plans were detailed and personalised, activities were available, and people and relatives felt able to raise concerns.
The Effective rating was Requires Improvement. Capacity assessments were not specific to individual decisions, and consent was not always recorded. Best-interest records did not say who had been involved. Staff did not receive regular recorded supervision or appraisals. The provider was recommended to seek guidance on the Mental Capacity Act and laundry arrangements.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke highly of the staff. Inspectors saw calm, compassionate interactions and found that privacy, dignity and choice were respected.
“People told us they were well cared for by staff who treated them kindly, with compassion and with respect.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
The home had enough staff on duty and used recruitment checks for people working with vulnerable adults. Medicines were securely stored, administered safely and accurately recorded.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and when they needed them. Medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff detailed information about people's needs, preferences and how they wanted to be supported. They were reviewed each month.
“Care plans were reviewed on a monthly basis to ensure they met people's current support needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could choose from group and individual activities, including activities linked to their interests and abilities. The home also supported links with local schools and churches.
“The activities included verbal quizzes, word games, bingo, ball games, sing-alongs, arts and crafts, reminiscence sessions, cake decorating, animal visits and entertainment days.” from the report
Consent and capacity records
needs fixingCapacity assessments were general rather than linked to specific decisions. Consent was not always written down, and best-interest records did not identify everyone involved. Inspectors recommended that the provider seek recognised guidance.
“Where people had the capacity to consent to their care and treatment, their consent was not recorded.” from the report
Staff supervision and appraisals
needs fixingSampled records did not show regular formal supervision. Staff had not received appraisals to assess and develop their performance, although staff said they felt supported.
“Staff records we sampled did not demonstrate that supervisions had been held regularly.” from the report
Laundry space
needs fixingThe laundry was very small, making it difficult to keep soiled and clean linen adequately separate. Inspectors recommended seeking advice on safe laundry systems.
“However, this room was very small which made it virtually impossible to adequately separate soiled linen from clean linen due to space.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure capacity assessments relate to each specific decision?
- 02How do you record people's consent and everyone involved in best-interest decisions?
- 03How often do staff receive supervision and appraisals, and how do you check these are recorded?
- 04What changes have been made to separate clean and soiled laundry safely?
- 05What has changed at the home since this 2016 inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection looking at the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions, including safety, effectiveness, caring, responsiveness and leadership. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 October 2016 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 Primley House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 2011.
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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.