• Care Home
  • Care home

Portelet Lodge Care Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

42 Westby Road, Boscombe, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH5 1HD (01202) 398982

Provided and run by:
Portelet Care Limited

All Inspections

19 September 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Portelet Lodge Care Home is an adapted property in a residential area of Bournemouth. Registered for up to 23 people, there were 20 people living at the home, some of whom were living with dementia. The home was accessed over three floors via stairs or a lift.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were safe and told us they were happy living at Portelet Lodge. Risks people faced in their day to day lives had been identified and assessed, measures were in place to keep people safe.

The home was undergoing improvements to fire safety and the work was ongoing. Staff were trained in fire safety and regular testing, drills and practice evacuations took place. Utility checks and general risks within the home were in place and assessed. Equipment was maintained regularly and staff were trained in it's use.

Staff and people interacted with each other in a kind and affectionate way. The home felt relaxed, with a vibrant, fun feel.

Infection control measures were robust to contribute to a safe environment and prevent avoidable infections.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 25 November 2017).

Why we inspected

We undertook this targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had about risk management within the home. Following this inspection, we were satisfied by the management of risk for people. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains good.

We use targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

16 February 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Portelet Lodge Care Home is an adapted property in a residential area of Bournemouth. Registered for up to 23 people, there were 22 people living at the home, some of whom were living with dementia. The home was accessed over three floors via stairs or a lift.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Safe practices were in place for welcoming visitors to the home. These included rapid COVID-19 testing, personal protective equipment (PPE), temperature, health checks and hand hygiene. Vaccination status was checked for all visiting professionals and records of staff vaccinations were maintained. Staff testing for COVID-19 was at the frequency in line with government guidance and a process was in place for monitoring.

People told us they happy and felt safe living at Portelet Lodge Care Home. We spoke with people informally as we walked through the home. Kind and caring interactions between staff and people were noted. The manager, deputy manager and staff at the home had worked hard to keep people safe. Policies and procedures within the home were robust and ongoing monitoring meant that the home worked safely and within good practice and government guidelines.

Supplies of PPE were in good supply, stock checks maintained, and we observed staff wearing this correctly. Staff had training in infection prevention and control and were shown how to put on and take off PPE correctly. The home was a good standard of cleanliness. Emergency planning procedures in place meant that the home could operate under pressures such as an outbreak or staff shortages. Domestic staff worked hard to keep all areas of the home clean and tidy including high touch points and deep cleaning, weekly.

People were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic. Visiting restrictions changed and the home adapted its policies, practices and communicated to people and their relatives. Risk assessments were completed for all aspects of care and support including additional risks related to COVID-19. The manager told us they had a good working relationship with external health and medical practitioners, this included regular checks of the medical needs.

25 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Portelet Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Portelet Lodge was registered for 22 people. There were 22 older people living in the home at the time of our inspection. People had a variety of care and support needs related to their physical and mental health.

This unannounced inspection took place on 25 November 2017. At our last inspection in July 2015 we identified a breach of regulation. This breach was in respect of the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) where people were not able to consent to their own care. At this inspection we checked to see if the provider had made the improvements necessary to meet the requirements of the regulation. We found that staff understood how the MCA supported their work and that best interest decisions had been made when people could not consent to their care.

Care documentation was being transferred to a computerised system and staff were positive about the benefits of this for accessing and monitoring information. We have made a recommendation about ensuring these records develop to reflect people’s wishes and preferences.

There was a registered manager for the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People, staff and relatives described that the home had been through a challenging period. They were all confident that the registered manager had secured change and stability. People were happy with their care and they shared appreciation and confidence in the registered manager and staff team.

Staff were consistent in their knowledge of people’s care needs and spoke with confidence about the individualised support people needed to meet these needs. They told us they felt supported in their roles and had taken training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills. There was a plan in place to ensure staff received refresher training as deemed necessary by the provider.

People felt safe. They were protected from harm because staff understood the risks people faced and how to reduce these risks. Measures to reduce risk reflected the person’s preferences. Staff knew how to identify and respond to abuse.

People told us they received the care and support they needed. They also told us they saw health care professionals when necessary and were supported to maintain their health by staff. People’s needs related to on going healthcare and health emergencies were met and recorded. People received their medicines as they were prescribed.

Where people had received end of life care at Portelet Lodge feedback from relatives was consistent in its acknowledgement of the kindness and compassion of the staff team in ensuring people’s wishes and needs were met.

People described the food as good and there were systems in place to ensure people had enough to eat and drink. Where people changed their mind about what they wanted to eat they were offered alternatives.

People had support, care and time, when they needed it, from staff who had been safely recruited.

People were engaged with activities that reflected their preferences, including individual and group activities both in the home and the local area.

Staff understood how people consented to the care they provided and encouraged people to make decisions about their lives. Care plans reflected that care was being delivered within the framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for when necessary.

People were positive about the care they received from the home and told us the staff were kind. Staff were cheerful and treated people and visitors with respect and kindness throughout our inspection.

1, 2 and 15 July 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 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 Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Regulations 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see the action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection that took place on 1, 2 and 15 July 2015. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors on the first day and one inspector on the second and third day. Shortly before the inspection we received some concerns about the service and, during that time, we spoke with one of the directors of Portelet Care Ltd and also the registered manager.

There were systems in place to monitor accidents and incidents in the home; however, some incidents that should have been raised with the local authority safeguarding team had not been referred. Steps were taken before conclusion of this inspection to retrospectively refer all incidents to the safeguarding team.

Dorset Fire and Rescue Service, who visited the home before we carried out this inspection, issued an Enforcement Notice under The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 with respect to fire safety measures at the home.

Action was taken to address other hazards that had been identified such as making sure the laundry room was locked, the garden made safe and that substances harmful to health were kept locked away from people living at the home.

The home had experienced difficulties in the preceding months in meeting staffing levels because of some staff leaving employment. Staffing levels were being maintained with the use of regular agency staff. Before conclusion of the inspection, the home introduced dependency tools to assist in calculating staffing requirements and had increased the night time staffing levels to better meet people’s needs.

There were robust staff recruitment systems in place to make sure that appropriate staff were employed at the home.

Medicines, in general, were managed safely at the home. It was agreed that the home would consider the use of pain assessment tools to assist in knowing whether people living with dementia were kept free from pain.

The home was working with the ‘Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in meeting infection control issues that had been identified.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and people’s consent was always sought about care and support where people had capacity to make decisions.

The records to reflect assessment and best interest decision making for people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions did not meet the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and we have asked the service to address this issue.

The home had systems in place to ensure that staff received appropriate training for them to be competent in their role.

Although there was some choice provided to people concerning the food provided, improvements could be made. It was agreed that more meaningful choice would be introduced and people would be assisted through use of pictures of meal choices. People who had lost weight were referred appropriately to their GP for assistance.

Action was taken to address shortfalls in the physical environment, such as fitting of a new call bell system, replacement of damaged furniture, refurbishment of bathrooms and introduction of better signage on one floor of the home.

Overall, there was a team of capable and caring staff who knew people’s needs.

People’s needs had been assessed before they entered the home and care plans put in place for staff to follow. At the time of our inspection the plans were not up to date and some had not been reviewed to reflect people’s changing needs. However; before completion of this inspection we were informed that all the plans had been reviewed and made up to date.

We recommended that more be provided in the way of meaningful activities for people. At the time of inspection, there was a vacancy for an activities coordinator.

The home had a system for managing complaints effectively.

The home had been through a period of change of management that had resulted in a period of instability; however, a new manager had been appointed and an interim management team put in place. The interim management team were open and transparent and were working with other health professional and the CQC to make the necessary changes.

11 April 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the time of our inspection there were 22 people accommodated at Portelet Lodge although one of them was in hospital.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because people were physically and mentally frail and unable to tell us about their experiences of the care they received. We therefore examined records and documents, spoke with a visiting healthcare professional, observed the home's routines and also where appropriate observed some of the care and support people received.

We also checked whether requirements we made at our last inspection of the home on 22 November had been met.

We saw that people received safe, appropriate care and support that met their complex needs and protected their rights.

People were provided with nutritious meals and supported to have adequate hydration.

Arrangements were in place that ensured medicines prescribed for people were managed safely and they had their medicines at the times they needed them.

The premises were maintained to ensure they were safe and secure for people who lived and worked there.

A system of checks or audits were carried out of the homes procedures and working practices to identify where and how the quality of service could be maintained and improved.

Records kept by the provider about people who lived at the home were up to date and accurate. This ensured people received safe and appropriate care.

22 November 2012

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection there were 22 people living at Portelet Lodge.

Care staff were attentive, understanding, empathetic and patient and provided people with the support they needed in accordance with their care plans. They also engaged people in social activities in order to provide stimulation and interest.

We were able to speak with five people and they all told us they received the care and support they needed. They said their accommodation was comfortable.

A visiting healthcare professional told us they thought the care provided for people was good.

We found that the provider had arrangements in place that ensured the care and support provided for people was in accordance with either their consent or that of appropriate representatives.

The provider's had some measures in place that ensured the property was maintained and safe. Also that equipment needed to promote people's safe care and treatment worked effectively.

At the time of our inspection there were enough staff deployed on duty to provide the supervison, support and care people needed.

The provider's arrangements that should have ensured risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others were not sufficiently comprehensive and robust.

Records the home kept about the care people needed were not always accurate or up to date and have compromised people's safety.

25 November 2011

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection visit at Portelet Lodge on Friday 25 November 2011. We did this because since we last inspected the home on 23 November 2010 the registered provider (home owner) had changed. There were 20 people living in the home at the time of our visit, although one person was in hospital.

Most people living at the home were mentally and/or physically frail. Consequently we were only able to talk with three people during our visit in order to get their views about what it was like to live in Portelet lodge. We also spent some time watching and listening to how staff worked as they provided the help and support people needed.

The demeanour and behaviour we observed of some of the people living helped us judge how they experienced life in the home. They also helped us assess the nature and quality of the interactions that we witnessed between staff and people living in the home. We saw that relationships were friendly, relaxed and informal. We also saw that staff were polite, sensitive, empathetic and well aware of individuals' preferences and specific needs.

The three people we spoke with told us that staff looked after them 'nicely' and were polite. They said that they received 'personal attention' and staff did 'not interfere'. They told us that they had help with managing their medicines. They also said that appointments were made with doctors and other health care professionals for them. They told us that social activities were arranged including trips to local tea dances. They said that they felt safe living in the home and they thought staff were well trained.

We spoke with one relative who told us that they visited the home at least once a week. They said they thought that the home was looking after their relative 'well'. They told us they thought that staff did 'not seem to have enough time to spend with residents'. They said that when their relative first moved to the home 'there seemed to be more staff about'.

A visiting health care professional told us that in their opinion Portelet Lodge was one of the better care homes in the area. They said the home's staff were very good at upholding people's dignity.

We spoke with six staff and they told us that they received comprehensive induction and ongoing training. They said they had regular one to one supervision meetings with their manager and there were regular staff meetings. They told us that the number of care staff on duty each morning had been reduced in recent months and expressed concern this could put people living in the home at risk. They said this was because could not supervise people properly whose behaviour could be unpredictable. They also told us that they believed the quality of life of people living in the home was compromised by having less staff on duty.

23 November 2010

During a routine inspection

All the people who living at Portelet Lodge Care Home at the time this review was carried out had enduring mental health problems. Some individuals were able to express their views clearly and others could not. We were able to speak to a number of visitors some who acted as representatives of their relatives living in the home. We also spoke to a visiting healthcare professional and a tradesperson who regularly visited the home had contact with people who lived there. They also told us what they thought of the service that the home provided. Everyone spoke very highly of the quality and attitude if the home's staff and of the support that they provided or arranged .People told us among other things the following about the service:

'The food is the same every week but different every day. The girls are very nice. They help me get washed and dressed. They help me have a shower'.

'It is lovely. The staff can't do enough to please you. The food is fantastic, it is beautifully cooked ' we go out in the mini-bus to dances and things and we have entertainers 'they don't make us do anything ' you feel at home here '.

'We educate and advise them about things like catheter care or pressure sores. They communicate with us very well and follow our instructions ' I take my hat off to them because of the challenges and demands and the care that some people need. We have absolutely no concerns. They let us know if someone's needs have changed'.

'I have been coming here 20 years, if I had any concerns or was unhappy about what went on here I would not come again. Staff are very good, very patient and respectful. I wonder how they manage because some days are so 'manic'. They are just really caring'.

'It's alright living here '.

'I visit one or twice a week 'there are no restrictions on visiting ' I think that the approach of staff is good and the standard of care is good, you hear scare stories in the press but I have seen nothing like that here ' I have filled in questionnaires about what I think about what they do here and how it could be improved'.

'Mum was in another home and they could not cope with her behaviour, but here the staff are wonderful ' if I won the lottery I would not have her live anywhere else'.