Archived: Portland House and Hemsley House

During the inspection we worked to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People's medication was stored, administered, recorded and disposed of appropriately.

People were cared for in an environment that was well maintained. A lot of renovation and redecoration work had been carried out since our previous inspection. Regular safety checks were carried out.

The records we saw were up to date and were stored securely.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

We looked at the care plans of two people who were using the service. A care plan should describe a person's needs and give guidance to staff in how to meet those needs. We saw that care plans had been rewritten since our previous inspection. They provided staff with relevant information about risks to people's health and well-being and how they should support people to minimise those risks.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with six people who were using the service and asked if they were happy with the care and support they received. One person said, 'I am staying here, the staff are all great.'

We observed there to be a calm and relaxed atmosphere throughout our inspection and people were at ease in their surroundings. We observed that people enjoyed the lunch that was provided and different options were available to cater for people's diverse needs.

Is the service responsive?

We observed the support that was provided to people in communal areas of the home during our inspection. Staff encouraged people to be independent and to do as much for themselves as possible. When people required support this was provided in a timely manner.

We saw that people had access to a range of different healthcare professionals when required, such as their GP, dentist and mental health services. Records were completed each day to indicate how each person had spent their day and what support had been required.

Is the service well-led?

People using the service and staff were asked for their feedback and action was taken in response. The provider also had an effective system in place to monitor the quality of the service that was being provided.

We spoke with five people who were using the service who told us, 'I really like the staff, they are all nice.' Another person said, 'Yes the staff are very nice. They treat us well and are respectful.' We saw that people's care plans did not always provide sufficient information to enable staff to provide safe and appropriate care.

We spoke with two members of staff to check their understanding of safeguarding procedures. The staff we spoke with displayed a clear understanding of their responsibility to report any matters of concern. Some work had been carried out to improve the appearance of the building, however further work was required to improve the appearance and decoration of the premises. Staff were receiving appropriate training and supervision to enable them to carry out their duties effectively.

People using the service were able to express their views about the quality of the service and they were acted upon. People told us that they could attend house meetings and put forward ideas and suggestions. Records relating to each person using the service were not always kept up to date and did not contain all relevant information.

We visited Portland House and Hemsley House and spoke with four people who lived there. One person said it was the best place they had lived and told us, 'I do not feel institutionalised here. I have access to my money and I can make my own drinks. The staff are starting to involve me with my care plan.'

Another person said, 'I get to choose what I eat. The menu is put on the board every day. We get a good choice of meals.'

This service had been through a period change. A new provider was registered in November 2011 and the registered manager left suddenly. The service went through a period of time without any management structure and the environment had not been properly maintained.

A new interim manager was appointed in January 2013. They had identified areas which needed to be improved. An action plan has been put in place. We found morale in the home was low, staff were not properly trained or supervised and therefore people were not receiving good quality, individualised care.

Quality audits had been recently re-introduced as these had not been completed over several months. Incidents were not reported by staff and matters relating to health and safety had been neglected. The new interim manager had implemented new quality auditing systems and had arranged for staff to receive further training.