Mountjoy Road

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s needs were not always accurately assessed, and their health was not always effectively monitored, for example, bowel health. The service supported people living with a learning disability and/or autism yet there were no support plans in place regarding this.

People and relatives were invited to 6 monthly care reviews. However, monthly reviews of people’s care were completed without consultation by the registered manager. Furthermore, the monthly reviews were not always completed. Where they had been, all reviews were documented, ‘no change.’ Therefore, we could not be assured reviews of care were effective, or that care and treatment was always person-centred and tailored to meet individual needs.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of continuity.

People had access to health professionals. However, shortfalls in relation to assessing, planning and recording people’s needs meant we could not be assured care was always joined up to support continuity and achieve positive outcomes for people.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Shortfalls in relation to records meant information was not always accurate and complete. People did not have access to up-to-date easy read care plans although some information was provided in a format to suit people’s needs. Complaints information was available in an easy read format however this was displayed in the registered manager’s office which was not always accessible to people living at the service.

The provider had processes in place for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, the provider did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Systems were in place to gather people’s feedback, via regular meetings and surveys. People and relatives told us they would approach staff or the registered manager with any concerns or complaints and felt comfortable doing so. However, people and relatives were not always involved in care reviews. For example, monthly reviews were completed solely by the registered manager. People had been invited to participate in annual reviews of care, however, documentation relating to this was not always complete and accurate.

The provider made sure that people could access care, support and treatment.

Systems and processes were in place to support referrals being made to health professionals when needed and staff supported people to attend appointments. However, shortfalls in record keeping and guidance available to staff meant we could not be assured signs of deterioration in people’s health conditions would be recognised and appropriately responded to.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Shortfalls in relation to risk assessment, management, and record-keeping meant that individualised care was not consistently delivered to meet people’s diverse health needs. A lack of oversight and monitoring of people’s health conditions increased the risk of them not experiencing positive outcomes.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Lack of detailed care planning meant people’s future goals had not been recorded or actions implemented to guide staff in supporting people to achieving them. Limited future plans had been made during annual reviews. However, these were mostly in relation to activities and did not include other aspects of people’s care, treatment and daily lives. Nobody was receiving end of life care at the time of the assessment.