You are here

Mount Pleasant Residential Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 27 September 2018

The inspection took place on the 13 August 2018 and was unannounced.

Mount Pleasant Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care home accommodates 24 people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection there were 21 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in post who had been registered with the CQC since August 2016. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection we identified a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 because information in people’s care records was not always up-to-date and audit processes were not robust enough. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made, but identified issues with training that had not been managed appropriately. This meant there was a continued breach of Regulation 17.

Following the last inspection, we asked the registered provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions safe, effective, responsive and well led to at least good. At this inspection we identified that improvements had been made to safe and responsive, but further improvements were needed in effective and well led.

During this inspection we identified that staff training was not being kept up-to-date. It is important that staff maintain their skills and knowledge to ensure this stays in line with current best practice. This had already been identified as an issue by the registered manger and the registered provider, however effective measures had not been put in place to ensure this was rectified. Following the inspection we contacted the registered manager who confirmed that training remained an issue. This showed that quality monitoring systems still needed improvement.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Whilst audit systems had failed to ensure that training had been kept up-to-date, other aspects of the quality monitoring process was more robust. For example, monitoring of care records, infection control procedures and the environment were being undertaken and where issues had been identified, these had been addressed. This showed that some improvements had been made in this area.

At the last inspection we identified issues around staff following appropriate moving and handling procedures. During the inspection we identified that improvements had been made in relation to this. Other risk assessments were also in place to maintain people’s safety and well-being.

We previously identified issues with the safe storage of medication as this was being stored in people’s bedrooms without appropriate risk assessments. At this inspection we identified that this had been rectified. People were receiving their medication as prescribed and appropriate paperwork was being completed to show that this had been given.

At the last inspection we made a recommendation that the registered provider implement appropriate procedures to become compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). At this inspection we found that appropriate action had been taken to ensure the registered provider was discharging their duties as required by the MCA. We observed that people’s rights were being protected and decisions made in their best interests where required.

At the last inspection we found that care records were not always being kept up-to-date. At this inspection we identified that thi

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 September 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse.

Accidents and incidents were being monitored and action had been taken to ensure people’s safety.

Risk assessments were in place to help mitigate the risk of harm to people.

People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 27 September 2018

The service was not always effective.

Staff training had not been kept up-to-date to ensure they had the necessary skills to carry out their role.

People’s rights were being protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People commented positively on the food that was available, telling us that they liked this.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 September 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect.

Positive relationships had been developed between staff and people using the service.

People’s confidentiality was protected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 September 2018

The service was responsive.

Care records were personalised and had been kept up-to-date.

Activities were being carried out within the service and people had the choice of participating in these.

There was a complaints process in place which was accessible to people using the service and their family members.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 27 September 2018

The service was not always well led.

Quality monitoring systems were not always robust enough to ensure appropriate action was taken where issues were identified.

Surveys had been completed with people using the service and their family members which showed people were happy with the service.

The registered provider was notifying the CQC of specific events that had occurred within the service as required by law.