CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Portland Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, risk management, medicines arrangements and infection control were generally found to be safe, although two medicines recording issues needed action.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans identified people's needs, choices and health requirements. Staff were trained and supported, people received suitable food and drink, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff involved people in decisions, respected privacy and supported independence, equality and personal choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people had choice and control over daily routines, activities and relationships. The home had systems for communication, complaints and keeping in touch with family and friends.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was described as consistently managed, with an open culture and quality checks. However, CQC had not been notified about every event, and the management system was changed during the inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Portland Lodge is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some medicines records needed improvement.
This was a planned inspection on 13 April 2021. One inspector spoke with nine people, observed care, checked medicines, recruitment and infection control, and reviewed care plans, records and management information. Feedback was also received from staff and health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and supported. Inspectors saw kind and respectful care, enough staff, personalised support, good infection control and effective work with health professionals.
There were some issues to address. One person's medicine needed its exact administration time recorded, and the outcomes of as-needed medicines were not initially recorded. The home also had not notified CQC about every event and some areas needed updating. The report says prompt action was taken on the medicines and notification systems.
Kind and respectful care
People and professionals described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw positive relationships and staff respecting people's dignity, privacy and choices.
“People were treated with dignity, and their privacy was respected.” from the report
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding procedures and individual risks. Fire safety and emergency plans were also in place.
“People said they felt safe using the service.” from the report
Enough, consistent staff
The home had consistent permanent staff and inspectors found there was enough time to meet people's care and social needs. Recruitment checks were robust.
“People were supported by appropriate numbers of consistent, permanent staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, needs and abilities. People could make choices about their routines, food, activities and where they spent their time.
“Care plans were sufficiently detailed, personalised and focused on what people could do as well as the support they required.” from the report
Good infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment, testing, cleaning and safe visiting arrangements appropriately during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicine times were not initially recorded
seriousOne person's medicine had to be given at least four hours apart, but the exact administration time was not recorded. Inspectors said this created a risk of harm. A new recording process was arranged.
“There was not a system in place to record the exact time this medicine was administered.” from the report
As-needed medicine outcomes were not recorded
needs fixingStaff had guidance about when and how to give as-needed medicines, but there was no record of whether they worked. The home said it had taken prompt action to record this.
“There was no system to record the outcome of PRN medicines meaning the effectiveness of administration could not be monitored.” from the report
Some events were not notified to CQC
needs fixingCQC had received notifications about most relevant events, but not all of them. The manager changed the system during the inspection.
“Whilst we had been notified of most events we had not been notified all events.” from the report
Some areas needed updating
minorInspectors found that parts of the home needed updating or redecorating. A maintenance plan was in place, with more urgent work prioritised.
“Some areas of the home required updating or redecorating.” from the report
End of life wishes were not formally recorded
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. However, people's specific end of life wishes had not been formally recorded, although the home had an assessment document available.
“Specific end of life wishes had not been formally recorded” from the report
- 01What process is now used to record the exact time of medicines that need a set gap between doses?
- 02How do you record and review whether as-needed medicines have worked?
- 03What events were not notified to CQC, and how do you make sure all required notifications are now sent?
- 04Which areas of the home needed updating or redecorating, and what is the timetable for this work?
- 05How will you record and review my relative's end of life wishes?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control because of COVID-19. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 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.
Every inspection of Portland Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 April 2019.
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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.