Portelet Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Relatives told us they were worried people were left with nothing to do. One relative said, “I wish they could take [person] to the garden or somewhere as they said at the beginning they did. Now they only keep the residents in the lounge and back to their rooms.” Another relative told us, “[Person] seems quite happy but has nothing to do.”

Care plans contained contradictory information which meant staff did not always have the most up to date and relevant information on how to provide person centred care.

Staff knew people well and told us they worked to support people in a person-centred manner. One staff member said, “I support people in a person-centred way by involving them in decisions about their care, respecting their preferences and routines, and promoting independence. For example, I support people to choose their meals, clothing, daily activities, and preferred times for personal care wherever possible.” Another staff member told us, “I provide care tailored to each residents preferences, needs, and routines. For example, I respect their choices regarding daily activities, meals, and personal care. I encourage independence and involve them in decision making as much as possible.”

We observed people spent most of their days in the lounge with very few activities to occupy them. Some people were falling asleep in their chairs. Staff tried hard to engage with people, however they did not have the time to do so as they had care tasks to complete.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked with a wide range of health and social care professionals to ensure there is continuity to people’s care and treatment.

One health and social care professional told us, “I only have one person who I am working with there and they understand [person’s] needs well and have always been flexible in their care for them.” Another health and social care professional said the team were “fantastic” and staff knew people well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed. Staff confirmed they knew people well and were aware of their communication needs. One staff member said, “I support people using simple, clear communication and communication aids (when needed) to assist people to decide their needs for me to offer and render person centred care at all times.”

We observed staff communicating with people in a person-centred and individualised way.

The provider confirmed they were prepared to support people with various communication needs and could provide information tailored to them. For example, in large print.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The provider held residents’ meetings every 6 months.

Records showed the provider had a system in place to ensure complaints were logged and responded to. However, not all relatives felt they would be listened to if they raised concerns with the provider.

The provider had an up-to-date complaints policy.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported to access health and social care professionals. Staff understood people’s individual needs, their differences, and preferences.

Records confirmed people were supported with required medical appointments and follow up appointments. Staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

There was not enough staff to provide people with activities. Staff did not have the time to support people with their emotional wellbeing.

The provider did not have effective system in place to check on people. This meant staff did not know how often they should check on people cared for in bed.

People’s risks to their health were not always assessed. This meant potential health hazards could be overlooked, increasing the likelihood of illness or long-term health problems.

The provider did not consider these inequalities and did not remove barriers to positive experiences and outcomes for those most likely to experience worse outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People had plans in place, which detailed their preference for care at the end of life.

Staff told us they were aware of people’s care needs and had access to relevant documentation in regard to care at the end of life. A staff member said, “I support residents receiving end of life care and I have received the training. I know who has a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) among the residents and where to find a current DNAR document.”