The Porterbrook

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We rated safe as good. We assessed 5 quality statements. People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff told us felt confident to raise any concerns. Staff knew how to report such concerns promptly. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Risk assessments about care were person-centred, proportionate, and regularly reviewed with the person, where possible. Robust recruitment procedures were in place. Medicines were managed safely. A staffing dependency tool was used and followed. Staff said at night there was not always enough staff on duty to meet peoples needs. People also told us at times staff were rushed and very busy. Staff followed Infection prevention and control procedures. However, we found areas of the service which were not kept clean or well maintained. These issues were addressed following visit.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People told us they felt safe and had no concerns regarding their safety. People felt confident they could raise concerns if they needed to. One person said, “I'm very safe here.” Another said, “I feel safe, the staff look after me very well.”

Staff recognise and report abuse and poor care. Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding about how to report any concerns.

Staff predominantly supported people safely. Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and reported incidents.

There were effective systems, processes and practices to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. There was a commitment to taking immediate action to keep people safe from abuse and neglect. This included working with partners in a collaborative way. People’s care records showed the service was working within the principles of the MCA.

Risks were identified and detailed in peoples plans of care. Peoples identified risks were managed safely and management of risks promoted their independence. One person said, "I have not had any falls or accidents, the staff keep me safe."

The management team held regular meetings to review and monitor risk, to ensure safe management of risks. People they support, their families, and other relevant stakeholders were also involved when required. These discussions were conducted in a person-centred manner, ensuring that the voice of the individual is central to the planning process.

People were kept safe, risks were monitored and reviewed regularly. Risk management plans were in place, and we observed staff followed these.

Processes were in place to manage risks. People had individual risk assessments and care plans detailed actions to be taken.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Most people and relatives felt there were enough staff on duty. They said at times staff were rushed but understood at times they were very busy. They said most calls for assistance were responded to in a timely way.

There was a staffing dependency tool used, people’s dependency was regularly reviewed, and staffing adjusted accordingly. Staff said there were predominantly adequate staff on duty to meet people’s needs. However, staffing on nights could be increased. Staff told us since they had new admissions, they were struggling to meet people’s needs in a timely way on night duty. This was discussed with the registered manager who assured us this was being addressed. Staff received training to ensure they had the skills to meet people's needs.

We observed during our visit sufficient staff available to support peoples care needs in a timely way. The staff rota showed staff were covering shifts to avoid the use of agency. However, this did mean staff could be working long hours with a mix of day and night shifts in one week, which could impact on people. The registered manager was actively recruiting staff, which would address this issue. Staff received supervision and support. However, we observed staff did not always follow best practice when supporting people with moving and handling, therefore, training had not been effective. The registered manager acted on this immediately, to ensure staff followed safe practices.

processes were in place to ensure there are enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who receive effective support, supervision and development. They work together effectively to provide safe care that meets people’s individual needs.

Staff followed good infection control procedures. Staff wore the appropriate PPE and washed their hands. People said the home was kept clean. However, our observations evidenced some furniture and equipment was not maintained in a clean condition and people were sat on dirty chairs. This was addressed immediately.

There were infection control policies in place, staff received training in infection prevention and control. There was a maintenance and renewal plan and the registered manager confirmed following our visit, that various items of equipment and furniture had been ordered to replace damaged items that could not be effectively cleaned.

We carried out a tour of the service and found areas that were not well maintained and not clean. For example, lounge chairs were heavily stained, tea trolleys were stained, storerooms, linen rooms and sluices were cluttered and unorganised with items stored on the floor, shower and bath chairs were dirty and stained and the laundry was cluttered and disorganised. We also found continence pads in numerous storerooms packets open and not clear if they were used for the correct person. This was addressed by the registered manager following our visit.

The provider had systems in place to monitor infection, prevention, and control. However, the providers quality assurance had not identified some areas that required attention.

Safe systems were in place to ensure people received medicines. People and their relatives confirmed staff administered their medicines safely.

There was detailed process in place to ensure that all staff have understood and are competent in applying the training and guidance they receive. Staff attend refresher courses at regular intervals. These sessions reaffirm their knowledge and skills and include competency checks to ensure they remain proficient.

There were processes in place to ensure staff have the knowledge and competent to administer medicines.