The Porterbrook

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.

We rated effective as good. We assessed 5 quality statements. Staff comprehensively assessed people, so the care and treatment provided met their needs. This included both their mental and physical health and any personal circumstances that needed to be considered and any protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. Staff worked in a strong culture of evidence-based practice. Staff worked together and with others when assessing people’s needs and shared information to maintain continuity of care. Where people were assessed as lacking capacity to make a particular decision, the provider followed best interest processes to protect people's rights.

We rated caring as good. We assessed 1 quality statement. People’s care plans contained information about the type of decisions they were able to make and how best to support them to make these decisions. People’s independence was promoted, they had control over their care improving their wellbeing.

We rated responsive as good. We assessed 1 quality statement. The provider sought out the views of people and relatives to continuously improve the service. People did not experience discrimination and staff worked hard to provide equity in access to care and treatment.

We rated well- led as good. We assessed all 7 quality statements. The management team were clear about their roles and responsibilities and understood quality assurance. However, some audits had not identified improvements required in a timely way. This was addressed by the registered manager. The staff promoted an open transparent culture that was inclusive. People and their relatives felt the service was well managed and were kept fully informed. Staff felt supported by each other and part of a team.