High Mount

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.

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 needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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. People had detailed care plans in place, these were clear and identified people’s needs. The home environment was person centred. We saw how people had been involved in how the home was decorated. People had personal items in their bedrooms and decoration had been chosen by them. People who lived at High Mount had mostly lived there for several years and they had formed friendships. We observed 2 people who enjoyed each other’s company sat in the lounge together, 1 person enjoyed the other singing. During our visit the home had not long had a bereavement of a person who had lived at High Mount for many years. A memorial box with items that reminded people of them had been created and people could spend time remembering them.

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. The service worked with other health professionals involved in people’s care. The home had regular visits from the SALT team. During this assessment we gained feedback from the SALT team. They told us, “The staff team have dysphagia awareness training, and, in addition, first aid training in the event of a choking incident, this is in line with their provider policy. Currently find the staff team proactive (in line with SALT guidance) in working to reduce eating, drinking and swallowing risks”. A learning disability nurse who had been involved in the home for a long period of time told us, “There has been a lot of management turnover, and the provider change that happened. Communication can be conflicting from staff. This could be due to poor handover or lack of training and knowledge. At times a delay is present from management in responding to queries, this at times has been conflicting information from the home manager and deputy manager”.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats tailored to individual needs. Since 2016 all organisations providing publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carer’s, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says people should get the support they need in relation to communication. The accessible information standards were followed for people. Care plans detailed people's communication needs. Staff were able to describe how people communicated. Complaints processes were on display, as well as information around keeping safe and advocacy services. Staff had access to speaking up numbers and services available.

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. People were able to provider regular feedback, ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and changes that took place. Appropriate advocates or family members were involved in the best interest meetings and this was recorded. Staff listened to people and would take time to communicate with people. Where people were supported to move around the home, this was always communicated and a reason provided.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to medical appointments and follow up appointments. People received visits from health professionals. People’s care records showed they had received medical support. One relative told us, “They always see a health professional if needed, the staff are good at calling and gaining advice from the GP”. Staff understood how to source health professionals. Referrals were made and followed through by the home manager.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. The new manager had different ways to explore with staff and people on how they could meet people’s needs. Staff were aware people could be vulnerable due to isolation. The home encouraged involvement with the local community, this including the local church. Management ensured people were supported to maintain important relationships with family and friends.

People were 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. No one living at the service was currently in receipt of end-of-life care. However, the provider was working with people and their relatives to discuss people’s preferences and choices. People’s care plans provided information around their choices for this. A relative told us, “We are aware and have arrangements in place for [Person’s] end of life plan”.