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 changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Relatives told us they had been involved in the development of care plans and these reflected people’s needs. They told us staff knew people well and adapted care and support as people’s needs changed. One relative told us a ground floor room for their relative had been arranged when their mobility had deteriorated and they were becoming less confident using the stairs.

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. Relatives told us any concerns raised by other professionals was shared with them.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We did not see any examples of easy read information or information presented in large font to support people with a visual impairment. A standard breakfast and evening meal menu was available in the dining room but lunch menus were not displayed. We observed people were asked what they wanted for their lunch the day before. However, some people may not have been able to remember what they had chosen.
There was no dementia friendly signage in the home to help people with dementia orientate themselves confidently through the premises. Bedroom door signs had not been designed so people could easily identify their own rooms.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Resident meetings were held to gather people’s feedback about the service. A meeting was held on the first day of the assessment and we saw people were encouraged to contribute to discussions.
Relatives told us they had no cause to complain but would be confident raising any issue if they ever needed to.

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

People were supported to attend appointments and have access to other professionals when they needed to.

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.

Some people chose to stay in their rooms or were unable to leave their rooms, putting them at risk of social isolation. Staff frequently checked these people to make sure they were comfortable and had all they needed.
Adaptations had been made to the premises. For example, handrails had been fitted in some corridors to aid people with restricted mobility.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The manager told us they had approached 2 relatives for information relating to how people would like to be supported at the end of their lives. However, there was no evidence people’s values and wishes had been discussed with them or how these might influence decisions about their care at the end of their lives.