CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Porterbrook
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but effectiveness and leadership still needed improvement, and the home had left special measures.
Inspectors visited on 22 October 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and medicines procedures, kind interactions, person-centred records and a range of activities. People were supported to access health professionals and to make choices about their care.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Some staff needed more knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and some training was overdue. Mealtimes could be poorly coordinated, some cream records had gaps, and not all abuse allegations had been reported to CQC. The provider was no longer breaching regulations, and the home was no longer in special measures.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Call bells were answered quickly and staff had time to spend with people.
“There were enough staff employed to meet people's care and support needs in a timely way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw people's dignity, privacy and independence being respected.
“People were treated well by all the staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's history, preferences and needs. Staff had guidance on how to support each person.
“The care records we looked at were person centred and contained information about the person's social history and what mattered to them.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered activities and social opportunities, including trips, music, gardening and links with local schools. Staff also helped people maintain important relationships.
“There were meaningful activities and social opportunities available to people living at The Porterbrook.” from the report
Mental capacity knowledge
needs fixingSome care staff did not know which people were subject to DoLS. The report recommended more training and better sharing of information about the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS.
“Some of the care staff we spoke with were not aware of which people were subject to a DoLS.” from the report
Mealtimes were sometimes disorganised
needs fixingAlthough staff supported people appropriately, inspectors saw a person waiting and becoming frustrated while another person was supported. The manager agreed that the dining experience needed better coordination.
“Although this support was given appropriately with staff sitting next to people and describing what they were doing, it was also chaotic at times.” from the report
Some medicine records had gaps
needs fixingMost medicine records were complete, but some topical medicine charts did not show that creams had been applied. The manager agreed to follow this up.
“Most of the MAR charts we looked at had been fully completed, however we did find some gaps in topical MAR charts, which are used to record when creams have been applied.” from the report
Safeguarding notifications
seriousThe home had not told CQC about all allegations of abuse referred to the local authority. The missing notifications were submitted immediately after the inspection.
“However, we found CQC had not been notified of all allegations of abuse.” from the report
Policies were not all dated
minorThe home had policies covering its work, but some were not dated. This made it unclear whether they reflected current law and good practice.
“However, they were not all dated so it was not clear whether they reflected current legislation and good practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What training have all staff now completed on the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS, and how do you check they understand it?
- 02How are mealtimes organised now to make sure people do not have to wait for the support they need?
- 03How do you check that topical medicine records are completed every time creams are applied?
- 04What is your process for reporting every safeguarding concern to CQC and the local authority?
- 05How do you check that policies are current, dated and followed by staff?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, following the previous Inadequate rating and six earlier regulatory breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found kind care but serious problems with staffing, medicines, consent and management.
Inspectors visited on 27 and 28 March 2019. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff and health professionals. They also checked care records, staff files and management records.
The home was caring, and people were treated with dignity and respect. Food, activities, cleanliness and access to health professionals were also positive. However, inspectors found unsafe recruitment, no reliable way to calculate staffing needs and problems with some medicines records.
The home was rated Inadequate overall. Effective and well-led were rated Inadequate, while safe and responsive Requires Improvement. The home was placed in special measures because CQC found significant concerns and said it would monitor the service closely.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were consistently positive about staff. Inspectors saw staff provide reassurance, protect privacy and treat people with dignity.
“We saw positive, caring interactions between people and staff throughout both days of the inspection.” from the report
Food and mealtimes
People said they enjoyed the food and had choices. Staff supported people patiently and catered for health and cultural dietary needs.
“We saw the dining experience was positive.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home provided a range of activities and events, including quizzes, singing, pampering sessions and gardening. People were seen joining in and enjoying themselves.
“There were meaningful activities and social opportunities available to people living at The Porterbrook.” from the report
Clean and maintained premises
Inspectors found the home clean and well maintained. Equipment and safety checks were up to date.
“We saw the premises were clean and well maintained.” from the report
Access to health professionals
People were supported to see health and social care professionals. A visiting professional said staff followed their advice.
“The staff are good and always follow our advice.” from the report
Unsafe recruitment
seriousSeveral staff files lacked important checks, including full employment histories, interview evidence or suitable references. This meant the home could not show that staff had been safely recruited.
“Recruitment processes were not safe.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThe home had no effective system to show how many staff were needed. Weekend staffing was a particular concern to people, relatives and staff.
“As the registered manager was unable to evidence that sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to meet people's needs this was a breach of Regulation 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, Staffing.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousRecords for some creams and ointments did not show when medicines had been applied. Inspectors said this could have left people without pain relief or led to medicines being given too close together.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousThe home did not keep clear records about people's capacity, consent or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. One person's bed rails had no recorded best-interest or capacity assessment.
“We found the service was not working within the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not identify problems with recruitment, medicines, staffing, supervision, consent or care records. Several issues from the previous inspection had not been fixed.
“Where audits had been completed by the registered manager they were ineffective.” from the report
Incomplete care and complaint records
needs fixingMonthly care record reviews were not always completed and were often brief. One complaint response was given verbally but was not recorded as the home's procedure required.
“The care records we looked at contained records of monthly evaluations taking place, however these had not consistently taken place every single month and when they had the information was often brief.” from the report
- 01How have you fixed the missing recruitment checks, including employment histories, interviews and references?
- 02How do you now calculate safe staffing levels, especially at weekends?
- 03How are you checking that topical creams and as-needed medicines are given at the right times and recorded accurately?
- 04How do you record people's capacity, consent, best-interest decisions and current Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations?
- 05What action plan and audit results can you show to prove that the repeated management and record-keeping problems have been fixed?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home, including the premises and care provided, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 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.
Every inspection of The Porterbrook
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- December 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 November 2016.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.