High Mount

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.

The service under a previous provider was rated requires improvement for this key question. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

There was a process in place to ensure people’s needs were assessed. The assessments we reviewed considered people’s individual risks, needs and preferences. One relative told us, “I am not directly involved in their day-to-day care plan but always feel reassured that whenever an issue arises related to their care, staff are always concerned and follow his best interests and to use every indication from [person] as to what their needs are”.

Staff knew people well. At the front of each person’s care plan staff had signed to say they had read and understood the person’s agreed care and needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider understood the current legislation and embedded this into the service provided to people.

Records showed people were involved in daily activities. Records recorded people’s choices and preferences. Staff would detail in notes how the person enjoyed an activity along with what worked well and what could be improved for the future.

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.

The provider and management worked closely with partner agencies. However, one partner raised concerns over how information was shared by staff and a delay in responses at times. They told us, “In relation to support and information sharing there can be conflicting information shared by staff, which I am not sure if this is due to poor handover, lack of knowledge or lack of training where staff do not realise the importance of sharing information to enable better assessment of the person and understanding the resident’s needs. The management team are willing to clarify any queries but, on some occasions, there is a delay in response to emails and this information can be conflicting”.

People had hospital passports in place to support them when attending health appointments or hospital. These provided key information about people’s needs, communication and accessibility requirements to enable healthcare professionals to be aware of these.

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 had care plans in place detailing the support they required around nutrition and hydration. We observed people being offered a choice of meals. We raised during the inspection some staff didn’t effectively communicate with people to understand the choice they were making. The manager positively received the feedback and told us they would raise this concern and speak to staff.

We saw people attended health appointments as required and had access to a range of health professionals as required. We saw the manager completed referrals where needed and these were within quick timescales.

Monitoring charts were in place to monitor people’s food intake and fluid intake. This was reviewed daily by staff and the manager would complete an audit to ensure people were meeting set targets put in place by health professionals.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care plans provided details of outcomes people wished to achieve. Staff completed reviews with people around their outcomes and looked at where more outcomes could be introduced for people to achieve. Reviews of people’s care involved relatives and one relative told us, “We are involved in reviews and always kept up to date”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People’s care plans recorded their consent to care. Where people did not have the capacity to consent to their care, we saw best interests and appropriate representatives recorded as part of the meeting. People had Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) in place. During this assessment no person living at High Mount had conditions on their DoLS. The manager had a DoLS matrix in place to monitor the dates of people’s authorisations. Reviews of people’s care were completed regularly and involved people.