Portobello Place

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

During our assessment of this key question, we identified one breach of the legal requirement in the area of good governance. This related to the governance, maintenance, accuracy and completeness of records relating to care and support people received. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below. We received mixed feedback from people, their relatives and staff working at the home about how the service was run.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us they were aware of the provider’s vision and values. Some staff told us they were not always content with the culture of the service and how leaders promoted a positive culture. Some staff told us they were not confident in the provider’s internal process to report concerns about the culture and had therefore raised concerns externally. Post inspection the leadership team told us they were working to try and improve the staff culture at the service.

The provider adopted an anti-discriminatory approach to the recruitment process. In its recruitment policy it stated, “Specific attention must be given to avoiding discrimination of any kind. Effective recruitment will be achieved through a values-based approach.” Two thirds of the staff had received training in equality and diversity which should encourage them to work in an inclusive way.

People and their relatives gave mixed feedback about the leaders within the service. Some told use senior leaders were not always visible or that they didn’t feel listened to. Others told us the leaders were not responsive to concerns. We were concerned staff did not feel able to provide feedback to us. At the time of the assessment 60 staff worked for the care home. Thirty staff were care staff, initially only three care staff were willing to provide feedback to us. We discussed our concerns with the provider’s people manager as we were concerned about a possible closed culture within the home. Following our discussion more care staff provided their views. Some staff commented they felt supported by leaders and felt they were accessible to them. Comments included, "I personally feel the manager empowers us to raise concerns" and "from my interaction there is never any issues". However, other staff told us they found them “abrupt,” “rude.” Staff told us some leaders did not provide feedback in a constructive way, or lead by example. For example, staff told us leaders did not always communicate with staff in a professional and respectful manner.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy, which advised staff on how to raise a concern and who to raise it with. We saw no evidence staff received training in this area however, there were posters with information about the process. We found whistleblowing had been discussed at a staff team meeting on 1 March 2024. There were records which evidenced both positive and negative feedback had been received by the service. There was a complaints policy in place, however the records we say did not always demonstrate that complaints were dealt with fully in line with the policy.

Staff who gave us feedback shared their mixed views about their ability and confidence to speak up. Some staff said they would not hesitate to raise concerns they had, to the registered manager. However, some staff told us they had previously raised concerns with the registered manager and more senior manager only for their views to be dismissed, or no action taken as result. Staff have told us they feel if they raise some concerns they are “told off” and told us they would not be willing to speak up in the future. Staff told us they used to get minutes of meetings held with them. However, they told us these meetings either do not happen regularly or they do not get any minutes of meetings. Staff told us they wanted to share their concerns with us, as they wanted to improve the experience of people living in Portobello Place but were concerned about repercussions for their employment.

People and their families were able to attend meetings with the service staff. People told us agenda items and discussions appeared to always concentrate on food and drink matters and events and activities. The Chef attends and seeks feedback and new suggestions. Other relevant areas such as discussions about management, communications and the running of the service were not mentioned by people as happening. However, a review of the meeting minutes confirmed other items were discussed. Feedback from relatives was mixed although there was a process in place to deal with complaints relatives told us this is not always effective. There was room for improvement in the way the provider ensured staff, people and relatives felt able to speak up.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Improvements were required in the way the home was managed. Some staff told us the registered manager did not always acknowledge staff. Many staff told us the registered manager was not open to discussions, did not give clear direction and failed to ensure improvements were made to the health and safety of people. Some staff also told us communication was poor between them and the registered manager. Other staff told us the registered manager did listen to them. The provider had a general data protection regulation policy (GDPR); however, we observed confidential information was left out in communal corridors for all to read. Staff told us they also observed periods of time where doors to rooms containing confidential information were propped open and therefore unauthorised access could be gained to information.

Governance systems were not always effectively used to monitor and mitigate risks to people. For example, the system to monitor and mitigate risks of people becoming dehydrated was not being effectively used by staff. The manager told us they were aware of this and had tried to improve record keeping, however we found this was a continued issue. Systems in place to ensure visitors and people could be safely evacuated in the event of a fire were not effective. For example personal emergency evacuation plans were not fully complete, or easily accessible.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We found the registered manager was reactive to our feedback and had not identified a number of the issues we had noticed. The registered manager described an example of where they were trying to involve staff in developing ‘falls prevention’ within the service. Staff told us they did not always feel the registered manager listened to their concerns and was not always responsive to implement changes. However the manager told us they had implemented some improvements and described an example of purchasing additional sensory equipment for one person.

There were concerns throughout this assessment regarding the implementation of policies, procedures and training. On a number of occasions, we found the provider had issued a policy or procedure, but this had not been followed by either the registered manager or the staff, for example the safeguarding policy. The lack of management oversight meant these had gone unnoticed. The lack of implementation of training meant the staff either did not have the necessary learning or could not apply the learning. A number of audits of the service had been conducted but failed to identify the areas we had identified, for example infection control audit. Concerns recognised during this assessment were also acknowledged by the local authority in February 2024, if any improvements had been made they had not been sustained.