Mount Pleasant House

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 70 (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.

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. One person told us “I love it here” and a relative said, “I am extremely happy with [relative’s] care, and all the staff are amazing”.

Staff showed a patient, and compassionate approach to people. We observed staff engaging with people, they knew them well and were focussed on people’s happiness and well-being.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service employed an activities coordinator 3 days a week. This member of staff was described positively by a person, who told us, “She is very good, so active, lovely and good fun.” During periods when this staff member was unavailable, the acting manager explained other staff were able to stay later and support people with some activities. However, one person’s relative told us that because the person was hard of hearing and had poor eyesight, they were unable to watch television and felt that “more activity [was] needed” when the activities coordinator was not available.

Staff spoke about how a person with a learning disability enjoyed specific activities such as drawing. One member of staff told us they felt the person would benefit from more one-to-one time and that, at present, they may be at risk of becoming “isolated”. During the assessment, we observed the person had access to pencils but no paper. There were no records to show that this person had participated in any activities for 2 weeks.

Staff had not received appropriate training to support people with a learning disability. This meant they did not have the knowledge or skills required to understand people’s individual communication needs, reasonable adjustments, or how to provide care in line with best practice and current guidance. As a result, there was a risk people with a learning disability may not receive care that was person‑centred, inclusive, or responsive to their needs. The lack of training meant staff were not fully equipped to recognise distress, adapt their approach, or promote people’s independence and involvement in decisions about their care.

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

People told us staff were attentive, taking time to listen and be with them.

Relatives said they were able to visit at any time. We observed visitors being made welcome and able to join people in a sitting room.

During lunchtime, we observed people were offered more food when they had finished their meal. One person was able to choose alternatives to the menu to enjoy their preferred foods.

We observed kind and meaningful interactions between staff and people, which showed staff respected and valued people using the service. Staff knew how to communicate with people, using their preferred names. Staff were respectful with people and when talking about those they supported.

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.

Call bells were generally available to enable people to summon assistance when required. However, on the first day of the assessment, 2 call bells were not working. An external contractor was contacted to complete repairs, and this was addressed promptly.

Call bells were not available in communal areas, such as the lounge and dining room. However, staff were observed frequently walking through these areas.

In 1 person’s bedroom, the call bell had been disconnected from the wall, which meant the person would not have been able to summon assistance independently. The acting manager told us the person unplugs this but there was no risk assessment to direct staff on the actions they should take to ensure the person did not require assistance throughout the day and night.

During the inspection, 1 person became unwell and required support. Staff responded promptly and contacted a doctor immediately, demonstrating appropriate and timely action.

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

Some staff had worked for the service for up to 18 years and told us they enjoyed working there and that the team, “get on well”. The acting manager was complimentary of the staff stating they could, “not fault the staff”.

Whilst records of supervision highlighted these had not been regularly completed, staff said they felt supported.