Mountside Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us they liked the staff, and we witnessed people responding to staff with respect and affection. Relatives told us staff were, “Kind and very good,” “Staff are calm and compassionate with people,” and “Capable and caring”

Staff consistently considered people’s individual needs and preferences. The ethos of the service was to ensure everyone was treated fairly and equally. This was supported by up to date care records. Staff were seen to be kind and supportive to each other and told us they worked well as a team and valued their colleagues.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff told us they considered people’s lifestyle choices and respected those choices. One staff member said, “We encourage people to make choices, might not always be a wise choice, but it gives them back their identity and that’s really important.”

We saw that staff knew people and their life histories very well and understood their likes and dislikes. Care plans were specific to each person and there were policies that put people at the centre of their care and treated them as individuals. People’s electronic care plans were up to date, personalised and contained detailed information about their strengths, weaknesses, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. These were updated regularly and when people’s needs changed.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them. Visitors were welcomed into the home. People and their relatives told us they could visit at any time and stay as long as they wished. Staff offered refreshments to visitors and if visitors chose to, they could arrange to eat with their loved one. This enabled people to maintain meaningful relationships.

People were supported to maintain their independence within a risk assessment framework that allowed them safely to take risks. People were confidently mobilising with the use of walking aids, when needed, while staff walked alongside them in a supportive but non-intrusive manner, allowing people to retain control of their movement while ensuring their safety. This demonstrated an understanding of positive risk-taking and promoting independence without any unnecessary restrictions.

Staff told us they offered people choices of drinks and meals, asked where they would like to spend their time, and informed people of different activities taking place. One staff member said, “We encourage people to do as much as they can, involve their families as well.” Adapted cutlery and tableware were provided to help people to eat independently where possible. We observed staff offer choices of drinks, food and snacks throughout the day.

Care plans also reflected people's choices and preferences and information of how staff can support people to make informed choices. For example, using written aids or a family member/advocate. Care records reflected people’s communication needs so staff understood how to provide people with information and how people communicated their choices and preferences.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Relatives told us, “They respond pretty quick when my relative has been unwell, they keep us informed,” and “I know they contact the GPs and expert professionals when my relative needed it, and they always keep me informed with what is going on.”

We observed staff respond to call bells quickly with staff giving re-assurance and support. We saw people being supported when they required it, for example, helping them to activities, to their room or to the bathroom and assisting them to eat and drink.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider and management team worked together to ensure each staff member had regular supervisions, and yearly appraisals. Staff were supported to explore extending their skills and look at further qualifications. Staff told us, “Well supported, lots of training and we can always approach seniors or the manager.” The registered manager had an open door policy which was appreciated by the staff team.

Professional support for staff was balanced with staff welfare and enabled staff to have some flexibility with their work life balance without compromising the actual care being provided to people. The service provided an on call system that meant that staff could call a manager at any time for support if needed.