Archived: The Mount Residential Home

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 changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Systems to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to people, including risks associated with the environment and support planning were not always effective and did not always demonstrate a caring approach. Audits and checks were not effective and had not enabled the provider to identify and address the significant concerns we found during this assessment. Staff had not always been provided with clear guidance on how to safely meet people's individual needs. This meant people were not always cared for in a safe way.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff. One person told us, “The staff are so lovely, kind and caring they look after me very well.” Another person told us, “The staff are a fab bunch, and they maintain my dignity when supporting me with a wash, I have no concerns there.” When people became upset, we observed staff showed compassion and provided emotional support and reassurance.

Relatives told us staff were caring towards their loved ones. One relative told us, “They are kind, caring and are approachable.” Another relative said, “They always have the door shut when [person] is asleep and they shut the door for personal care”.

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 provider had not considered people’s needs in respect of the environment. Some people lived with dementia, but best practice guidance for creating a suitable environment for people had not been considered. This included guidance on signage, lighting, individualised doors and decoration.

People told us their individual needs were met and respected. However, people and their relative’s shared feedback about the lack of meaningful and consistent activities in the home. One relative told us, “There isn’t a schedule of activities, and the stimulation levels need to be improved”. Although we observed some short activities being provided these were not always tailored to people’s needs who lived with dementia. There was little evidence of activities provided to people who were cared for or chose to remain in their room. This meant, at times, people were not engaged in meaningful activities for long periods of time and were just sat in their rooms or in communal areas without any stimulation other than the television, if they were interested in what was on.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not consistently consulted to make decisions about their care. For example, by being involved in their care plan reviews and being consulted about equipment that could be used to promote their safety. We observed some people were not offered choices at mealtimes or throughout the day with the choice of snacks that were suitable for them. People’s care plans provided limited information about their preferences, hobbies, and routines. People did not have access to meaningful activities. One person said, “There isn’t much to do here apart from watch TV, or a film. They (staff) occasionally throw a ball about or do a quiz”.

People and relatives told us staff did encourage them to maintain their independence during personal care and choices were offered. One person said, “Staff do ask me to help when they are supporting me with a wash. I also choose what I want to wear and what time I get up and go to bed.” We observed people were asked where they would like to sit for their meals during lunchtime and people sat with their friends. Some people were asked what TV programme's or films they would like to watch.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us and we saw staff did respond to their needs in a timely manner. One person said, “Staff always come if I need them, they are very good.” A relative said, “[Person] has always told us staff are good and come quickly when [person] uses their call bell.” We observed staff provide reassurance and emotional support when people become upset or were distressed. Staff provided tactile support such as holding a person’s hands and sharing a hug when initiated by the person. Staff were able to understand people’s needs and wants for those people who were not always able to communicate verbally. Staff used handover systems to share any concerns about people’s needs.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they did not always feel listened to or valued. There had been several changes with the management of the home which had resulted in a lack of support being consistently provided to staff. Supervisions and meetings had not always been consistently facilitated to gain feedback from staff. A staff member told us, “It’s been difficult due to all the changes in managers. Each manager has a different way of doing things. The last manager was not very supportive and didn’t help us when we needed it. This new manager seems nice and has already planned in a supervision with me and meetings which is good, I just hope they stay.” Another staff member told us, “The seniors are really good, and they provide us with support as the managers are normally too busy, and the provider doesn’t really check if I am okay.”

The provider did not operate any staff recognition or well-being programme's to recognise staff performance or achievements or to enhance their well-being.