We carried out a review of the data available to us about Mount View House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Mount View House, you can give feedback on this service.
Mount View House is a residential care home providing personal care to 8 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 8 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
Right Support
People's independence was promoted, and staff encouraged people to participate in their care decisions. People's care plans were person centred and reviewed regularly. Risks associated with people's care were assessed to identify how their care could be provided safely and in the least restrictive way. Staff supported people to take part in meaningful activities and pursue their interests. However, the service had struggled with staffing levels and this had impacted the consistency of some people's care and access to the community. We discussed this with the leadership team who evidenced steps taken to promote recruitment and retention of staff. The service was clean, and evidence of ongoing repair was seen. The provider didn’t consistently complete cleaning records, we made a recommendation around this.
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; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Right care
People received kind and supportive care. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity. They understood and responded to people’s individual needs. People had access to health care professionals when they needed them. Medicines were not always recorded accurately; records contained gaps and people's as and when medicines did not always have clear directions. We made a recommendation around this. Following our inspection, the provider shared additional evidence to demonstrate medication recording issues had been addressed with staff, and amendments had been made to improve records.
Right culture
People received good quality care, support and treatment because staff were trained in areas related to their needs and staff received regular supervision from support leaders. Feedback from staff on the culture within the service was mixed. Some staff felt morale was low and others felt it was improving after a period of change. Relatives were generally happy with the support being provided and the outcomes people had achieved. However, some relatives were concerned with the level of community access and use of agency. Positive feedback on partnership working was provided by visiting professionals. Systems were in place to monitor and learn from incidents in the service. Recent audits for medication had not been completed. We made a recommendation around this.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 23 January 2018).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Mount View House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
The service did not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, since the last manager left another person had been employed who had submitted all the required documentation to the CQC and was awaiting an interview for registration. This person was supported at the inspection by an area manager and other management staff.
We brought this inspection forward because of a complaint made by the member of the public..
The service used the local authority safeguarding procedures to report any safeguarding concerns. Staff had been trained in safeguarding topics and were aware of their responsibilities to report any possible abuse.
Recruitment procedures were robust and ensured new staff should be safe to work with vulnerable adults.
The administration of medicines was safe. Staff had been trained in the administration of medicines and had up to date policies and procedures to follow.
The home was clean, tidy and homely in character. The environment was maintained at a good level and homely in character.
There were systems in place to prevent the spread of infection. Staff were trained in infection control and provided with the necessary equipment and hand washing facilities. This helped to protect the health and welfare of staff and people who used the service.
Electrical and gas appliances were serviced regularly. Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) and there was a business plan for any unforeseen emergencies.
People were given choices in the food they ate and where appropriate supported to shop or assist to make the meals. People were encouraged to eat and drink to ensure they were hydrated and well fed.
Most staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager was aware of her responsibilities of how to apply for any best interest decisions under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and followed the correct procedures using independent professionals.
New staff received induction training to provide them with the skills to care for people. Staff files and the training matrix showed staff had undertaken sufficient training to meet the needs of people and they were supervised regularly to check their competence. Supervision sessions also gave staff the opportunity to discuss their work and ask for any training they felt necessary.
We observed there were good interactions between staff and people who used the service.
We saw from our observations of staff and records that people who used the service were given choices in many aspects of their lives and helped to remain independent where possible.
We saw that the quality of care plans gave staff sufficient information to look after people accommodated at the care home and they were regularly reviewed. Plans of care contained people’s personal preferences so they could be treated as individuals.
Management conducted audits of the service and completed action plans to improve the service.