Mount Joyce Care Ltd Also known as Mount Joyce Care Ltd - Kettering

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

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement.

Requires Improvement: This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent

This service scored 54 (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 were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People told us they were involved with their care planning. One person told us, "When I came out of hospital they came to visit, and chatted to me about what I would need, I got to know them. A care plan was written, and we went through it together, it was comprehensive and done properly”.

Another said, "The managers visited and wrote a care plan with me and my relative (June 2025) they have visited again to reassess, but nothing has changed”.

However, peoples care plans were not always reviewed within the indicated timescales, and there was conflicting guidance, with some documents stating reviews would occur every 2 months, others every 3. The management team assured us as, they are aware of any changes required and updated care plans accordingly.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them.

Care plans required more information to inform new staff and external agencies of people’s history, preferences and needs. However, all staff currently supporting people knew them well.

The provider did not use clinical tools such as Water low to assess pressure ulcer risk. Additionally, care plans did not include guidance on identifying and responding to different stages of pressure ulcers. This was discussed and the provider told us this would now be used.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Despite care plans requiring further information, people and their relatives told us they were supported by a consistent team and staff knew them well. One person told us, “If there is a new person, who is learning it is always apparent, but that person will work with an experienced member of staff.” However, another said, “I do get a bit frustrated sometimes. For example, recently the carer left without telling us about an issue with my relative. The carer reported it to the manager who then informed me. The carers know that I coordinate my relatives care”.

The staff we spoke with demonstrated good knowledge of the people they support, and they told us they are kept up to date via WhatsApp messages, emails and telephone calls.

We saw evidence of multi-disciplinary meetings.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Carer notes did not always reflect care being delivered in line with care plans, often just recording, ‘care delivered successfully with no issues.’ This had not been identified in audits.

Where people were supported with catheter care, carer notes lacked detail on aspects such as of amount of urine, colour/ smell/ debris etc. This was discussed with the management team who told us they would ensure this would be included.

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.

There were no systems in place to keep track of people's needs and risks. People's risks were not recorded properly. Regular reviews of people's risks were not completed in a structured or consistent way to enable changes to be identified and monitored. This was discussed with the management team who assured us they were always monitoring during care calls and going forward this would be recorded.

Due to the lack of recording of incidents and accidents we could not be assured the management team had oversight into identifying any patterns or trends and missed opportunities to improve the service. However, people and their relatives were positive about their care and treatment.

The service introduced a speak up champion during this assessment, and the management team told us they were looking to introduce other champion roles.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Staff had received mental capacity training and gave good examples of what this meant in their working days. They also provided good examples of how they gain and respect people's consent, helping to ensure people they support are involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

One person told us, “The staff respect my relative’s wishes; they will ask her if they can help her with something before they do it. They will ask my relative if she would like to wash her face and encourage her to do so”. However, consent was not gained for relatives to be present when completing care plans. This was discussed with the management team who assured us this would be gained going forward.

People's care plans contained information regarding capacity and Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR).

People had decision specific mental capacity assessments in place and had best interests’ decisions in place where necessary. However further details were needed to demonstrate the extent of relatives’ level of involvement in these decisions, this was discussed with the registered manager who assured us additional information would be added.