CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Primrose Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were recorded and reviewed, safeguarding arrangements were in place, and medicines were stored, given and recorded appropriately. Some people and relatives questioned whether there were enough staff, although inspectors did not see staff rushing and records showed staffing matched assessed care needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had training, supervision and experience to provide care. People were supported with food, drinks, special diets, health needs and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw friendly relationships, and found that privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's personal needs and preferences, and people had access to activities and community events. However, the detail in care plans was variable and some people and relatives were unhappy about changes to activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. Audits, meetings and reviews were in place, although daily records tended to focus on tasks rather than the person.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some concerns about activities, staffing time and care records.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 8 October 2018. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training records and management checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found medicines were managed properly, staff had suitable training, people were treated with kindness and respect, and the home was clean and welcoming.
Some people and relatives felt staff did not always have enough time for activities after the dedicated activities role was removed. Inspectors also found that some care plans and daily records lacked detail. The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection, and there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke warmly about the staff. Inspectors saw friendly conversations and positive relationships, with privacy and independence respected.
“During our inspection we observed there to be positive relationships between staff and people who lived at the home.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored and managed appropriately. Records had no gaps, stocks were sufficient and staff had medicines training.
“Medicines continued to be stored and managed appropriately.” from the report
Good staff preparation
Staff had a range of training, regular supervision and annual appraisals. Their practice was also observed to check that care was delivered safely.
“Staff told us, and records confirmed they had regular access to supervision and an annual appraisal.” from the report
Clean, welcoming environment
The home was described as warm and homely, with personalised rooms. Inspectors found it clean and tidy, including exceptionally clean bathrooms and shower areas.
“The home was maintained in a clean and tidy manner. Bathrooms and shower areas were exceptionally clean.” from the report
Open management
Relatives and staff described the registered manager as approachable and supportive. The home used audits, meetings and outside reviews to monitor its service.
“A range of checks and audits continued to be undertaken at the home.” from the report
Limited activity time
needs fixingSome people and relatives felt that activities had reduced after the dedicated activities co-ordinator role ended. The provider said the new approach would be reviewed, but it had not been welcomed by everyone.
“People and relatives expressed concern about the recent changes to how activities occurred at the home.” from the report
Variable care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans gave good personalised information, but others lacked detail. Monthly reviews were often limited to dates and signatures, and the manager agreed to improve them.
“Other care plans lacked detail or information.” from the report
Records focused on tasks
minorDaily records were completed regularly, but they tended to describe tasks rather than the person as an individual. The manager said this would be addressed with staff.
“Daily records were regularly completed although tended to focus on tasks rather than the individual as a person.” from the report
Staffing concerns raised by families
needs fixingSome people and relatives felt there were not always enough staff to provide personal care and activities. Staff and the manager said staffing was sufficient, and inspectors did not see staff rushing.
“Some people and relatives told us they did not always feel there were enough staff.” from the report
- 01How are activities now organised since the dedicated activities co-ordinator role was removed?
- 02How do you make sure care staff have enough time for both personal care and activities?
- 03What changes have you made to add more detail to care plans and monthly reviews?
- 04How do daily records now describe the person's wellbeing and preferences, rather than only completed tasks?
- 05How do you check that staffing levels continue to match each person's changing care needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the home is not registered to provide nursing care. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 November 2018 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 Primrose Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.