Portelet Lodge Care Home

Updated 4 October 2023

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. This was a targeted inspection to check on a concern we had about the risk management within the home.

As part of this inspection, we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by 2 inspectors.

Service and service type

Portelet Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and/or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement dependent on their registration with us. Portelet Lodge is a care home without nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Registered Manager

This provider is required to have a registered manager to oversee the delivery of regulated activities at this location. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered managers and providers are legally responsible for how the service is run, for the quality and safety of the care provided and compliance with regulations.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. However, they were on a period of absence, the home manager had started their application to become a registered manager with the CQC and in this report will be referred to as ‘the manager.’

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and safeguarding teams. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 8 people who used the service about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with 5 members of staff including the manager, operations manager, care workers and chef. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We made general observations of interactions between staff and people. We reviewed a range of records. This included 7 people's risk assessments and care plans, policies and procedures for the safety of the home.

Updated 4 October 2023

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.