You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

The inspection took place on 7 March 2017.

Mount Vernon is registered to accommodate up to 16 people and specialises in providing care and support for people who live with a mental health condition. At the time of the inspection there were 15 people using the service.

On the day of our inspection there was a registered manager in place. 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 previous inspection on 26 May 2016 we asked the provider to take action to improve the way the prevention and control of the spread of infection was managed at the service. At this inspection we found improvements had been made in this area and concerns dealt with appropriately.

People’s medicines were not always managed safely. Records showed one person had not received their medicine as prescribed. A weekly medicine audit did not identify this concern. Three members of staff had not completed medicine refresher training.

People were safe living at the service because staff knew how to recognise and report any incidents of harm. Staff were confident that the registered manager would deal with any concerns that they reported. Systems were in place for staff to identify and manage risks and respond to accidents and incidents. Staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited through safe recruitment practices.

Staff had opportunity to meet with the registered manager to review their work, training and development needs. The registered manager applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivations of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), so that people’s rights were protected. People received sufficient to eat and drink and they were involved in the planning of their meals however, we saw that their choices were limited on a day to day basis. People’s healthcare needs had been assessed and were regularly monitored. The service worked well with visiting healthcare professionals to ensure they provided effective care and support.

Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards the people they supported. Staff were aware of people's support needs and their personal preferences. Information was available for people about how to access and receive support from an independent advocate. People were encouraged to be independent and make individual choices. People's independence privacy and dignity were promoted and respected by staff.

People received care and support that was personalised and responsive to their individual needs. Regular reviews of people's care and support needs took place. People were supported to participate in a variety of activities. The complaints policy was accessible for everyone.

The registered manager understood the responsibilities of their registration with the CQC. People were involved or had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service. Quality assurance and auditing processes were not always in place to ensure people who used the service, their relatives, staff and visitors were safe. However, the registered manager took action to ensure that these were implemented.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 4 May 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

People’s medicines were not always managed safely.

People were protected from avoidable harm because staff understood what action they needed to take to keep people safe.

Systems were in place for staff to identify and manage risks and respond to accidents and incidents.

Staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had opportunity to meet with the registered manager to review their work, training and development needs.

People's rights were protected under the Mental Capacity Act

2005.

People received sufficient to eat and drink and they were involved in the planning of their meals however, we saw that their choices were limited on a day to day basis.

People had the support they needed to maintain their health and the staff worked with healthcare professionals to support people appropriately.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, caring and respectful towards the people they supported.

Staff were aware of people's support needs and their personal preferences.

Information was available for people about how to access and receive support from an independent advocate.

People were encouraged to be independent and make individual choices and their privacy and dignity were promoted and respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

The service was responsive.

People received care and support that was personalised and responsive to their individual needs.

Regular reviews of people's care and support needs took place. People were supported to participate in a variety of activities.

The complaints policy was accessible for everyone.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 May 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager understood the responsibilities of their registration with the CQC.

People were involved or had opportunities to be involved in the development of the service.

Quality assurance and auditing processes were not always in place however, the registered manager took action to ensure that these were implemented.