CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Primrose Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment, medicines, cleaning and accident records were found to be managed appropriately.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supported people's nutrition, health appointments and communication needs. However, staff supervision was not always carried out as often as the provider's policy required.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and patient. Inspectors observed respectful care, including privacy during personal care and support for people's independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, family contact and their chosen places of worship.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about management. Audits, feedback and meetings were used to check quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Primrose Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staff supervision needing closer attention.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 22 and 23 August 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home provides personal care for six adults with a learning disability. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by enough suitably checked staff, and given medicines safely. The home was clean and staff understood safeguarding and infection control.
People received kind and respectful care. Their care plans reflected their preferences, communication needs and goals. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, relationships, worship and independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection published on 24 February 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives said staff were kind and compassionate. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity and individual needs.
“We observed care workers speaking to people in a kind way and were having a laugh and joke with them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, communication needs and goals. The home helped people take part in activities and achieve personal aims.
“People's likes and dislikes were clearly documented and goals people had achieved or wanted to achieve.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make choices about food, medicines and their care. Staff supported people to keep skills they could still use.
“Independence was encouraged by the service.” from the report
Good oversight
Management used audits, surveys, meetings and professional feedback to monitor care. Actions from internal checks were acted on.
“Quality assurance systems were effective to check people were receiving care that was of high quality.” from the report
Staff supervision was not always on schedule
needs fixingRecords showed that supervision took place, but not always as frequently as the provider's policy required. This was a shortfall rather than a stated breach.
“Records showed supervisions did take place however, the frequency was not always in line with the providers policy.” from the report
- 01How often are staff supervision meetings held now, and how do you check they follow your policy?
- 02How are each person's current risks, such as falls, choking or seizures, reviewed and communicated to staff?
- 03How do you make sure each person's communication needs and choices are followed in daily care?
- 04What activities, community visits and family contact would be available for my relative?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a concern, and how would the home respond?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; all five ratings were reviewed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 October 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, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one gap in monthly weight records.
Inspectors visited on 12 and 13 January 2017. The first day was unannounced. They observed care and a medicine round, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
They found people were protected from abuse and avoidable risks. Medicines were handled safely. Staff were trained and supported. People were involved in decisions, supported with food and health needs, and treated with kindness and respect.
Care plans were personalised and included people's goals, routines and support needs. Families were invited to care reviews. Activities, holidays and visits from friends and relatives were supported. There was an easy-read complaints procedure.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the service was meeting all legal requirements at the previous inspection.
Safe medicines support
Staff checked medicine records, doses and timings, and records were signed after medicines were taken or refused. Senior staff also checked that records had been completed correctly.
“Medicines were managed, stored and administered safely to people.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff speaking kindly and spending time with people. Staff respected privacy and dignity during personal care and private conversations.
“People were supported by caring, kind and patient staff who were observed spending time speaking to people in a compassionate way.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included individual routines, support needs and personal goals. Families were involved in reviews, and staff helped people work towards things they wanted to do.
“People's care plans were person centred and contained individual plans of care and goals that had been set by the person.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported with activities they chose, including trips, walks and hobbies. The home also helped people maintain relationships with friends, family and spouses.
“A number of activities of people's choosing were arranged for them.” from the report
Open management
Relatives and staff said management was approachable. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to check the quality of care.
“The service had a number of quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service provided.” from the report
Incomplete weight records
needs fixingMonthly weight monitoring had not been completed for December 2016. Management said this may have been because of the Christmas period and said it would be completed.
“Monthly weight monitoring charts were completed for each person at the service to check they were within a healthy weight, records showed that the monitoring had not been completed in December 2016.” from the report
- 01How was the missing December 2016 weight monitoring completed and checked?
- 02How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will our family be involved?
- 03How will staff support my relative's personal goals and preferred activities?
- 04How are medicines checked if a dose is refused or if my relative needs an as-required medicine?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint using the easy-read procedure?
This was an overall inspection covering all five questions, with an unannounced visit on the first day; inspectors observed care and medicines and reviewed selected records. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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 Primrose Road
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Waltham Forest
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 £1,200 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.