Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Portland House Nursing Home

Goodpublished 25 September 2019, 7 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. This included visitor screening, use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
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.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2021

Portland House Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection control measures reassuring during a small COVID-19 outbreak.

This was an announced, targeted inspection on 15 March 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.

There were 26 people living in the home, which could care for up to 32 people. A small COVID-19 outbreak meant people were isolating in their rooms on the inspection day.

Inspectors were assured that visitors were screened, people were admitted safely, staff used protective equipment properly, and testing was available. They also found cleaning schedules, regular cleaning of touch points, and infection control checks.

The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall rating or ratings for care, effectiveness, responsiveness or leadership.

What inspectors praised
  • Visitor screening

    Visitors were checked for symptoms and asked set questions before visits, in line with current guidance.

    “Visitors were screened for symptoms and answered set questions relating to COVID-19 to ensure their visit could take place safely in line with current guidance.” from the report
  • Cleaning and protective equipment

    The home had cleaning schedules, frequent cleaning of touch points, and checks of staff skills in putting on and removing protective equipment.

    “The provider had cleaning schedules in place. Touch points were cleaned frequently throughout the day.” from the report
  • Contact with loved ones

    People were supported to stay in touch by telephone, video calls and pod visits while visiting restrictions were in place.

    “People were supported to maintain contact with loved ones via telephone calls, video calls and pod visits.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you currently screen visitors and manage visits during an outbreak?
  2. 02How often are touch points cleaned, and how is this checked?
  3. 03How do you make sure staff use protective equipment safely and correctly?
  4. 04How are residents supported to keep in contact with loved ones if they are isolating?
  5. 05What are the home's current arrangements for testing people using the service and staff?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 2021 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, September 2019

Portland House Nursing Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care but incomplete records for some mental-capacity decisions.

This was an unannounced planned inspection on 28 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were kind and respectful, medicines were managed safely, and people's health, food, communication and social needs were supported.

The main shortfall was in recording mental-capacity assessments and best-interests decisions. The home had improved its records, but inspectors still could not always see how decisions had been reached. They made a recommendation for the home to improve its practice.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe medicines

    Medicines systems were organised. Staff were trained and assessed as competent before administering medicines, and medicines were regularly reviewed.

    “Staff administered people's medicines safely. Staff provided people with support to have the medicines they needed to remain well, and people's medicines were regularly reviewed and checked.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.

    “During our observations we saw people were always treated with respect, kindness and compassion by staff.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans reflected people's individual needs and wishes. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, communication and independence.

    “Staff knew people very well and provided care and support which was person centred and took account of their needs and wishes.” from the report
  • Good leadership and teamwork

    The home used audits and action plans to identify and track improvements. Staff said communication was good and that they felt able to raise concerns.

    “Robust audits were in place and were effective at identifying improvements within the home.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Mental-capacity records

    needs fixing

    Records did not always explain how mental-capacity and best-interests decisions had been reached. This had also been identified at the previous inspection, although some improvements had been made.

    “However, at our last inspection we noted mental capacity assessments and best interests' meetings were not always recorded appropriately, and this was still the case at this inspection.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now record mental-capacity assessments and best-interests decisions, including how each decision was reached?
  2. 02How will you make sure the records show that decisions are made in line with the Mental Capacity Act?
  3. 03What staffing levels will be available for my relative's specific care and nursing needs?
  4. 04How will you support my relative's communication needs, food and drink requirements, activities and independence?
  5. 05How are care plans reviewed when a person's health or wishes change?

This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with care, medicines, staffing, records and management systems reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 September 2019 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Portland House Nursing Home

2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Portland House Nursing Home →

  2. September 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Portland House Nursing Home →

  3. February 2017Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. April 2015

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 April 2015.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire

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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.

See live-in carers near ShropshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.