Mountbatton Care Ltd

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety. Systems were in place to record and monitor accidents and incidents. Staff understood the process for reporting and recording safety related events which occurred. Events were reviewed on a regular basis by the registered manager and the wider management team and where appropriate reported to other agencies. This enabled them to analyse trends and identify any lessons learnt by working with people and staff through debrief sessions to identify why events had happened, and how to avoid situations in the future.

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.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse. Staff received training and understood the actions to take if they felt someone was being harmed or abused. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. They made referrals to the local authority safeguarding team when abuse had been suspected, and investigations were completed.

When a person was assessed as lacking the capacity to agree to the support they received, important decisions were made in their best interests in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The local authority had been informed of any restrictions which had been put into place to keep people safe, and the appropriate legal authorisation had been obtained. One family member told us their loved one’s care plans identified some very specific restrictions to keep them safe. They told us, “[Name] prefers it and keeps [Name] safe. [Name] is very happy with the support they receive.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Risk assessments had been completed, and personalised care plans had been developed to mitigate risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing. This included plans developed with people to mitigate risk through positive behaviour support planning. Staff provided care to people, which was safe and supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. This included accessing activities which were of particular interest, such as sports, shopping and socialising. Staff received specific training around people’s needs to ensure they delivered care which was safe and effective and regular reviews were undertaken with people which meant they were able to review and discuss any changes in their care needs. Family members told us their views were valued. Comments included, “Staff will take on my views and ask for my opinion if they are worried about anything.”

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

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development opportunities. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff were safely recruited and inducted; appropriate checks had been made before applicants were offered employment. Staff received training to effectively support people with a learning disability and autistic people. Staffing levels were safe, and people told us staffing was consistent and reliable. A family member said, “[Name] treats staff as family. They are very genuine and always have time for us.” Another family member described the provider as ‘flexible’ and said they amended staff support around the persons activities.

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

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. One person commented, “The staff do all my medicines. I know what my tablets are for. I have no concerns.” Medicines were only administered by appropriately trained staff who knew people well. Medicines were safely stored according to people’s needs and accurate records were maintained. There was a focus on reducing the number of prescribed medicines people took which was regularly reviewed and staff were proactive in seeking appropriate medicines advice and support for people when side effects were observed. A family member told us, “[Name] was taking a medicine which made them shake. The staff took them to the doctor and got this sorted.”