Mount Pleasant House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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.

People’s care plans were not always sufficiently detailed or reflective of people’s individual needs. Although some information was recorded about people’s backgrounds and what mattered to them, this was limited, and in 1 care plan this section had not been completed.

Some people did not receive personal care in line with their care plans. For example, 1 person’s care plan stated they ‘enjoy a bath’. However, there were no records to show the person had received a bath in the previous 12 months.

Relatives spoke positively about staff knowledge and communication. Relatives told us staff knew people well and kept them informed of any changes, such as when a person became unwell. One relative commented, “When I ring, they answer all my questions.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Healthcare professionals visited the service to provide care, support, and clinical guidance. This included GPs, district nurses, and dentists. One healthcare professional told us, “[The staff] act upon concerns and follow my advice.”

The provider did not always supply information in an appropriate, accurate, and up‑to‑date format that was tailored to meet people’s individual communication needs.

Care plans did not always clearly describe how people communicated or identified any communication aids they may require, such as hearing aids.

A breakfast and evening meal menu was displayed on the menu board. However, lunch menus were not available. We observed staff verbally informing people of the main meal of the day at lunchtime, but alternative methods of communication, such as written or pictorial formats, were not consistently offered.

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

People using the service and their relatives were not routinely asked for feedback about their experiences. Resident and relatives meetings had taken place infrequently. Feedback was gathered through questionnaires that were available for visitors to complete in the entrance area. However, only 2 questionnaires had been returned in the previous 12 months.

Resident meetings had taken place on 2 occasions during the last year., Written minutes included an action that more resident meetings with activity input would be held. There was no evidence this had taken place, nor evidence to show feedback from questionnaires had been reviewed or actions taken. This limited opportunities for learning and service improvement.

Information on how to raise a complaint was displayed in the foyer. However, this area was not accessible to people because the main door remained locked. Records relating to complaints were not consistently maintained. One complaint had not been recorded, and another complaint record lacked key details, including the name of the complainant. There was no evidence of a written response. The provider had limited assurance that complaints were managed appropriately and in line with the provider’s procedures.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People's care records showed they had access to care and support, and referrals were made for treatment when they needed it.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People and their relatives did not report any concerns in relation to any experience of discrimination and inequality from the service.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changesin a timely way. They did not always have sufficient opportunity to make informed choices about their future care,including decisions relating to end‑of‑life care.

There were no individual end-of-life care plansthat clearly documented people’s preferences, wishes, or values,such as their views on treatment, comfort measures, spiritual or cultural needs, or preferred place of care and death. As a result, staff lacked clear guidance to ensure care was delivered in line with people’s wishes when they were approaching the end of their life.

Although basic information, such as funeral director contact details and funeral arrangements were known and recorded,this information did not provide staff with sufficient direction to ensure people received person-centred, compassionate end-of-life care.There was limited evidence that meaningful conversations had taken place with people and those important to them to support advanced care planningand future decision‑making.