Updated 15 September 2026
About the service
Portcullis House is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care to up to 44 people. At the time of the assessment 19 people were living at the home.
Who the service is for
The home specialised in the care of older people including people living with dementia.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 6 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
There was a relaxed and calm atmosphere in the home. People appeared comfortable with the staff who supported them. We observed staff were kind and gentle and supported people in a way that promoted their privacy and dignity.
The care home was well led by a registered manager, deputy manager and a team of supervisors. All had an excellent knowledge of the people they supported and how to meet their needs. The provider had systems in place to monitor standards and to make sure learning from incidents, audits or complaints led to improvements at the care home and across the organisation.
Staff said they would be comfortable to raise any issues or concerns with the management team. One member of staff said, “We have regular team meetings which are good. We can talk about any issues, and the managers will always try their best to solve them for us. All the managers and seniors do listen to us.” Where issues had been raised, the registered manager acted promptly to make sure people were protected from abuse or poor care.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions, they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
Staff had knowledge of how to support people who lacked capacity to make certain decisions. One member of staff told us how they worked with other professionals and family members to make sure decisions made were in people’s best interests.
The building was safely maintained. However, some areas needed redecoration and refurbishment to make sure it provided a comfortable and pleasant environment for people to live in. The provider informed us a plan was in place to carry out work.
There were enough skilled and experienced staff to safely and effectively support people. Staff were safely recruited and praised the training available to them. One member of staff said, “The training is really good. Any extra training you want, you can have.”
People received their medicines safely from senior staff who had received specific training and had their competency in this area assessed. People were asked if they were happy to take their prescribed medicines and were offered ‘as required’ medicines, such as pain relief, appropriately.
People had their needs assessed before they moved to the home. From initial assessments care plans and risk assessments were completed. Care plans seen were personal to the individual which helped to make sure staff had the information they needed to provide person centred care to people.
People had access to healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. Healthcare professionals visited the home each week to address acute physical healthcare issues and monitor ongoing health. Staff liaised with mental health professionals to support people with mental health issues.
There were organised activities which supported people to stay physically and mentally active. People were able to choose which activities they wished to take part in. However, we noted, on the day of our visit, there were limited opportunities for social stimulation for people who did not join organised activities.