Mount Pleasant House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.

This service scored 58 (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’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

When new people moved into the service, managers reviewed any information provided by the local authority or other agencies. This information was used as a basis for care plans which were then developed as staff got to know the person and their needs and preferences. However, care plans were not all up to date. Some sections were contradictory, for example, one person needed regular repositioning to protect their skin. One section of the care plan referred to 2-hour intervals between repositioning and another 4-hour intervals. The provider had identified care plans as an area for improvement and an audit was planned.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.
One person was cared for in bed and required support to move to mitigate the risk of skin breakdown. Care records stated they should be moved every 4 hours. Records to evidence this had been completed had not always been filled in. For example, there were no records the person had been repositioned on the 10, 13, 14 and 16 of July 2026. This meant the person was unnecessarily exposed to risk of harm
People were regularly weighed. However, there was limited evidence this information was monitored or acted upon. One person had lost 3.3 kilograms between 19 June and 21 July 2026. No action had been taken in response to this weight loss.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.
Staff told us they worked closely with district nurses to help manage people’s skin integrity. Records showed referrals had been made to occupational therapists.
 

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were provided with a varied and well-balanced diet. Kitchen staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences and planned menus accordingly. There was a good supply of fresh fruit and vegetables. Relatives told us people enjoyed the meals. One commented, “[Name] has always been a big lover of food and enjoys the food there.”
Activity records showed people had an opportunity to take part in gentle exercise sessions. These types of exercises can help improve mobility and prevent falls.
A garden was accessible to people, including those with restricted mobility, and we saw people enjoying the sunshine. Staff encouraged them to wear sun hats and stay hydrated.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Some aspects of people’s health was monitored to help staff identify if their health was deteriorating. For example, staff were recording how much 1 person drank throughout the day. The electronic records calculated the total drank each day. However, there was no information about how much the person should be drinking. Staff were unable to tell us when they should escalate concerns about the person’s fluid intake.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent. Staff respected people’s rights when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Capacity assessments were not decision specific and referred to a ‘broad decision surrounding all aspects of care.’ There was no evidence people were supported to be involved in decision making processes.
Staff asked people before providing personal care and were respectful of the choices people made. Relatives confirmed staff asked for consent before providing care. One told us their family member sometimes refused support with washing and dressing. They explained how staff would leave them for a while and go back later. They commented, “They ring me to let me know if [relative] has had a shower or wash.”