Archived: Porlock House

Updated 19 February 2022

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Porlock House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

Before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We received feedback from the local authority. The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. We used this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We completed observations of the service. We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, and two members of staff. We reviewed three people’s care records. We also reviewed records relating to infection control.

After the inspection

We spoke with three staff via video calls. We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found.

Updated 19 February 2022

About the service: Porlock House is a large detached bungalow with an adjoining cottage and flat, situated in the extensive grounds of Somerset Court. The home is registered to accommodate ten people.

At the time of the inspection three people were living in the main part of the home; two people were living in the cottage and one person lived in the self-contained flat. People living at Porlock House can access all other facilities on the Somerset Court site which include various day services.

The people we met had complex learning disabilities and were not able to tell us about their experiences of life at the home. We therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with relatives and staff to help form our judgements.

The care service had not originally been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This guidance was implemented in 2017 after the service had registered with us. This was because there were five other registered care homes set in the grounds of Somerset Court in close proximity to Porlock House. In total 37 people with learning disabilities were living at Somerset Court. It would be unlikely that we would register this model of services now when considering applications for services for people with a learning disability and/or autism.

People’s experience of using this service:

The values set out in the Registering the Right Support include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. This location may not be ideal for some people who would want to access the local community independently due to the rural area. However, people were given choices and their independence and participation within the local community was encouraged.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and were confident any concerns raised would be responded to by their managers. Risk assessments were in place to ensure people’s safety. Medicines were managed and administered safely. Where medicines errors had occurred, learning had been implemented and was proving to be effective at reducing further incidents.

There were a range of checks in place to ensure the safety of the home. Some of these had not been completed consistently in line with the providers policy. There were plans in place to address this.

Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify and address any patterns or themes. Learning from incidents was shared with the staff team and with the other locations on Somerset Court. There were systems in place to manage infection control.

There were sufficient staff available to support people. Relatives commented about the amount of staff changes there had been, including the managers of the home. The provider had recognised this and put plans in place to enable staff and management consistency. Staff said they felt well supported by the deputy manager and the senior managers overseeing the service.

Staff did not always receive supervision in line with the provider’s policy, staff however felt supported and able to request a supervision if they needed one. The provider had plans in place to address this.

People had good health care support from professionals. When people were unwell, staff had raised a concern and taken action with health professionals to address people’s health care needs. Staff followed guidance provided to support people with their care.

People were supported to make choices and staff supported people in the least restrictive way as possible. This was kept under review. Staff were aware of the legislation to protect people’s rights in making decisions.

People were involved in choosing and planning their meals. Staff were aware of people's routines and preferences and they used this information to develop positive relationships and deliver person centred care. Relatives told us core staff knew their family member well.

Staff described how they supported people by treating them with respect and dignity. People participated in chosen activities and staff encouraged people to participate in things of interest to the them.

Care plans were detailed and relatives told us they felt involved in their family member’s care. Relatives said they were regularly invited to person centred planning meetings and reviews. Relatives felt able to raise concerns with the staff directly.

Staff worked in partnership with health and care professionals. Statutory notifications had been completed to inform us of events and incidents, this helped us the monitor the action the provider had taken.

There were systems in place monitor and improve the quality of care and support provided. Where there were shortfalls identified in the service the provider had a plan in place to address them, this was kept under regular review.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published September 2016).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At this inspection we found that the quality of service good.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk