We carried out a review of the data available to us about Portland House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Portland House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
We observed staff wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in accordance with government guidance when moving around the service and providing direct care to people.
Systems and processes were effective in ensuring visitors to the service were entering safely and in accordance with government guidance.
People were supported to safely self-isolate. COVID-19 specific care plans and risk assessments were in place which provided guidance to staff on how to safely meet people’s needs.
People felt safe living at Portland House and with the staff team who supported them. They told us the staff team were kind and caring and they treated them in a considerate and respectful manner.
People’s thought varied on the numbers of staff deployed to work on each shift. Whilst most felt there were enough staff members to meet people’s care and support needs, some did not. Observations identified times when there were no staff members available in the lounges and limited interactions between the people using the service and the staff team was seen. Limited activities were being offered due to no formal replacement for the planned absence of the activities coordinator. It was recommended that staffing levels be revisited to ensure appropriate numbers of staff were deployed on each shift to effectively meet people’s needs.
Most areas of the service were clean and tidy. The staff team had received training in infection control and personal protective equipment such as gloves and aprons were readily available and used by the staff team throughout our visit.
The risks associated with people’s care and support had been assessed. People's care and support needs had been identified and plans of care had been developed. The staff team knew the needs of the people they were supporting well.
People were supported to access healthcare services when they needed them and they were supported to eat and drink well. They were involved in making decisions about their care and support and their consent was always obtained.
People were supported with their medicines in a safe way though we identified one occasion when one person did not receive their medicines. Protocols were in place and followed with regards to medicines prescribed ‘as and when required’.
Appropriate checks had been carried out on new members of staff to make sure they were suitable to work at the service and relevant training and support had been provided. The staff team felt supported by the management team and involved in how the service was run.
There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service being provided. People’s views of the service were sought. This was through regular meetings, surveys and informal chats. A complaints procedure was in place and people knew what to do if they had a concern of any kind.
The registered manager and the management team worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people received care and support that was consistent with their assessed needs.
More information can be found in the detailed findings below
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 14 April 2016)
About the service: Portland House is a residential care home that provides personal care and support to up to 19 older people including people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection 13 people were using the service.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Portland House provides accommodation for up to 19 older people, including people living with dementia, who require personal care. There were 19 people using the service at the time of our inspection.
The service had a registered manager. 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 told us they felt safe living at Portland House. Their friends and relatives agreed with them.
The management team were aware of their responsibilities around the safeguarding of people and the staff team had received training on how to keep people safe from harm. Staff members we spoke with were all aware of the actions to take if they were presented with a safeguarding concern.
People’s needs had been assessed before they moved into the service to ensure that they could be met. From these initial assessments plans of care had been developed.
Risks associated with people’s care and support had been assessed to enable the staff team to provide the safest possible support. Where risks had been identified these had, where ever possible, been minimised to better protect people’s health and welfare.
People received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor. Medicines were being appropriately stored and the necessary records were being kept.
Checks had been carried out when new staff members had been employed to make sure they were suitable to work at the service. An induction into the service had been provided for all new staff members and ongoing training was being delivered. This enabled the staff team to provide the care and support that people needed.
People felt there were currently enough members of staff on duty each day because their care and support needs were being met. Their relatives and friends agreed.
People told us the meals served at Portland House were good. People’s nutritional and dietary requirements had been assessed and a nutritionally balanced diet was being provided. For people assessed to be at risk of not getting the food and fluids they needed to keep them well, records had been kept showing their food and fluid intake.
People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and receive ongoing healthcare support.
People had been involved in making day to day decisions about their care and support. Where people lacked the capacity to make their own decisions, evidence was seen to demonstrate that decisions had been made for them in their best interest and in consultation with others.
Staff meetings and meetings for the people using the service were being held. This provided people with the opportunity to be involved in how the service was run.
The staff team felt very much supported by the registered manager and the management team and felt able to speak with them if they had a concern of any kind.
The people using the service and their relatives and friends knew what to do if they had a concern of any kind. They were confident that any concern raised would be dealt with properly.
There were systems in place to regularly check the quality and safety of the service being provided and regular checks had been carried out on the environment and on the equipment used to maintain people’s safety.
Throughout our visit we observed the staff team treating people with kindness and they supported them in a caring and considerate way. They involved people in making choices about their care and support and when choices were made, these were respected by the staff team.