CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Portland College
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines and infection control were managed safely, and lessons were learned from incidents.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Capacity assessments were not always properly incorporated into care plans. Communication between care and nursing teams did not always support people's health needs, and some facilities, equipment and meal choices needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- People had positive relationships with staff and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's independence, relationships and spiritual needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication methods, cultural needs and personal identities. People could take part in activities and complaints were investigated and answered.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers used audits and action plans to monitor quality and make improvements. People and staff were involved in giving feedback and developing the home.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but effective care required improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, care staff, nurses and managers. They observed care and reviewed care records, audits, incident information, safeguarding referrals and staff training.
People were generally safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, good infection control and clear risk assessments. Care plans included people's preferences, communication needs and interests. People could take part in activities, education, hobbies and planning for greater independence.
The effective rating was Requires Improvement. Capacity assessments were not always properly linked to care plans. Communication between care and nursing teams did not always support people's health needs, including care for sore skin. Some living areas and equipment needed improvement, and people were unhappy with the lack of healthy meal options. The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs, including consistent staff for people who needed one-to-one support.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had established relationships with staff. Inspectors saw kindness, emotional support and respect for people's dignity.
“Throughout the inspection visit we found people were treated with kindness and care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff clear information about people's preferences, communication and support needs. People were involved in their care planning.
“Care planning was clear and gave staff directions on how to best care for people.” from the report
Activities and independence
People could continue using their skills, try new interests and take part in activities at the home and in the community.
“People were encouraged to participate in activities or areas of interest.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits, observations and action plans to identify improvements and check whether they had been completed.
“The registered manager and provider had completed a range of audits.” from the report
Capacity records
needs fixingThe provider had not completed all the appropriate Mental Capacity Act checks or linked them properly to care plans. Inspectors made a recommendation for this to be reviewed.
“However while the care plans were detailed and covered all aspects of people's lives the provider had not completed the appropriate checks under the MCA.” from the report
Sharing health information
seriousCare and nursing staff did not always share information well enough. For one person with sore skin, treatment was not consistent and there were no clear records of the required two-hourly repositioning.
“There was no clear records to confirm this had taken place.” from the report
Living areas and equipment
needs fixingSome rooms, bathrooms, curtains and kitchen facilities needed repair or improvement. Inspectors also found that some spaces and equipment did not fully support people's independence or personal choice.
“The environment did not always meet people's needs to provide them with the facilities to support independence or personal choice.” from the report
Healthy food choices
needs fixingPeople were unhappy that healthy meal options were not always available. The provider had started a menu review and planned to involve people in it.
“People told us there was not always a healthy meal as an option.” from the report
- 01How are Mental Capacity Act assessments now linked to each person's care plan?
- 02How do care staff and nurses share information about daily health needs, including skin care and repositioning?
- 03Have the reported repairs and accessibility problems with showers, sinks, cupboards, curtains and bathrooms been completed?
- 04What changes were made to the menus, and how are people involved in choosing healthier options?
- 05How do you check that any required repositioning and other complex care tasks have been completed and recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; end of life care was not covered because the home was not supporting people with it at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 June 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Portland College
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.