CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Portland House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infections. They found effective use of PPE, testing, social distancing, hygiene practices and outbreak procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice during a COVID-19 focused visit.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 February 2022. It was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, including how the home was managing staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found staff used personal protective equipment correctly. Visitors entered safely under government guidance. People were supported to self-isolate, with COVID-19 care plans and risk assessments in place.
The home was assured to be managing infection risks, including testing, admissions, social distancing, cleaning and outbreaks. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
PPE use
Staff were observed using personal protective equipment correctly when moving around the home and providing direct care.
“We observed staff wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in accordance with government guidance when moving around the service and providing direct care to people.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visitors were entering safely and in line with government guidance.
“Systems and processes were effective in ensuring visitors to the service were entering safely and in accordance with government guidance.” from the report
Self-isolation support
People were supported to self-isolate, with specific care plans and risk assessments to guide staff.
“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.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures covering admissions, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19?
- 02How would you support my relative to self-isolate if they needed to?
- 03How are visitors currently allowed into the home, and what restrictions apply?
- 04How do you test people using the service and staff for infections?
- 05How do you manage an infection outbreak in the home?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2022 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.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Portland House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some gaps in staffing cover, activities and medicines records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a visitor, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, training, recruitment and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly and respectfully. Staff knew people's needs, supported healthcare and nutrition, and involved people in decisions about their care.
Inspectors found some shortfalls. At times, people were left alone in lounges because staff were busy with personal care. Activities were limited while the activities coordinator was away. One person appeared to have missed medicines, and some records were confusing. The home acted on several issues during or after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People described positive relationships with staff. Staff knew people's histories, routines and preferences and supported them in a relaxed way.
“People experienced positive caring relationships with the staff team.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans contained information about people's individual needs, life histories and preferences. Staff supported people to make everyday choices.
“People received care and support based on their individual needs.” from the report
Promoting independence
The home supported people to remain independent where possible, including helping one person regain confidence to visit local shops and the library.
“People were encouraged and supported to maintain their independence whenever possible.” from the report
Responsive management
The management team acted on issues identified during the inspection and had systems to check medicines, care plans, weights, falls and incidents.
“The issues within the documentation identified during our visit were immediately addressed.” from the report
Staff availability and activities
needs fixingPeople were sometimes left without staff interaction while staff provided personal care. Activities were limited during the absence of the activities coordinator.
“Observations during our visit showed people were at times left to their own devices because staff were busy providing personal care.” from the report
Food and drink monitoring
needs fixingFood and drink charts had been completed, but they did not always show the amount of food taken. This meant they did not always give a true picture of what people had received.
“Whilst these had been completed, it was noted the amount of food taken had not always been identified, therefore it was not a true reflection of what people had been provided with.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now on duty on each shift, and how do you decide whether that is enough for the people living here?
- 02What activities are offered each morning and afternoon, and what cover is arranged when the activities coordinator is away?
- 03What changes were made after the missed-medicine incident, and how do you now check that medicines have been given and recorded correctly?
- 04How do you monitor food and drink for people at risk of not eating or drinking enough?
- 05Which areas of the building still need attention, and have the cleaning and hot-water issues found at the inspection been fully resolved?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 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 House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 July 2014.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.