Mountview

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to Regulation 15 (Premises and equipment).

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. A person told us; “I am happy with everything.” A relative said, “I’m very happy with my (Relative’s) care. It is more like a home; all residents are treated as an extended family.” Staff completed safeguarding training and were aware of the action to take if they suspected someone had been abused including reporting their concerns to the registered manager. Staff were aware about the procedure for whistle blowing and who to report and escalate concerns. The provider had a policy and procedure for safeguarding adults from abuse.

There were systems and processes in place to manage and follow up on accidents and incidents. For example, when a person had an unwitnessed fall resulting in a minor injury, the provider took appropriate steps by arranging a crash mat, and a new profiling bed to mitigate potential risks. The registered manager told us there had been 1 safeguarding referral made by an external healthcare provider and that they worked with the local authority safeguarding team, as a result the investigation outcome was as unsubstantiated. The provider was working within the principles of the MCA and appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive people of their liberty to ensure their safety when out in the community.

The provider had failed to take into account best practice guidance when operating another business based in the care home. The provider had not assessed the risks associated with another business being based in the care home. This included the risks of staff members having to enter the care home, walk past individuals bedrooms to gain access to the business operated upstairs in the care home. The provider had failed to consider the impact on people’s dignity, confidentiality alongside individual’s safety.

Notwithstanding the above, staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. We saw staff supporting people in a safe way. They were gentle, followed appropriate techniques and gave people the information they needed to stay safe. People were protected from avoidable harm. Risk assessments and risk management plans were completed with guidance for staff about how to reduce the risk to people. This included risks at the service and in the community. Individual risk assessments were in place which took account of people’s needs, in relation to moving and handling, epilepsy and seizure activity and dysphagia. Risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as and when required.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. A relative told us, “There are always permanent staff and no agency staff.” Staff told us they felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely.

The provider supported staff through induction, supervision, training, and appraisal to ensure they had the appropriate knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. Training records confirmed staff had completed a range of training to help them understand how to meet people’s needs. The provider adhered to the mandatory requirement to ensure all staff had completed training on supporting people with learning disabilities and autistic people.

The provider carried out satisfactory background checks for all staff before they started working. These included checks on staff members’ qualifications and relevant experience, their employment history and consideration of any gaps in employment, references, criminal record checks, and right to work. This reduced the risk of unsuitable staff working with people who used the service.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.