We carried out a review of the data available to us about Western Mount Lodge Nursing Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Western Mount Lodge Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Western Mount Lodge Nursing Home is a residential home located in Derby City providing nursing and personal care with accommodation. This service caters for people with mental health needs. At the time of the inspection, 16 people were living in the service. The service can support up to 18 people
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Infection prevention and control practices were followed to help prevent infection transmission, including those from COVID-19.
People’s health and care needs were assessed, and care plans and risk assessments were kept up to date. Staff received training and updates to help them support people effectively. New staff completed an induction programme, which included learning from more experienced staff. Staff supported people with their meals and drinks, and we saw their dietary preferences and choices were known and respected. Other health and social care professionals were involved in people’s care when needed.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People told us they were supported to raise any concerns they had, and this was discussed in regular meetings with people. Both the people using the service and the staff team were supported to give their views and audits were undertaken to monitor and drive improvement.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update: The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 10 August 2019). There were no breaches of regulation. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
People’s experience of using this service
All staff did not comprehensively understand their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives. Staff had not always asked people their consent when they provided personal care. Best interest decisions were not in place for restrictions on people’s lifestyles.
Care plans contained some personalised information about people’s preferences, though there was little information about people’s history and likes and dislikes, which would help staff to ensure that people’s needs were fully met.
The complaints policy did not outline the information for complainants to take their concerns to independent outside agencies. Complainants did not receive a written response to their complaints.
Information supplied to people was not always in large print to assist them to read it.
End of life wishes and preferences were not included in people's care plans.
People thought they were safe living in the service. Risk assessments were in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare. Staff recruitment checks were carried out to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff.
People said that safe personal care had been provided to meet people’s needs. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse). Staff members understood their responsibilities to safeguard people and to contact relevant agencies if needed.
The registered manager was aware that certain incidents, if they occurred, needed to be reported to us, as legally required.
Staff had largely received training to ensure they had skills and knowledge to meet people's needs in a number of important issues including moving and handling, safeguarding and infection control. Further specialist training was needed to be provided on people’s health conditions.
People told us that staff were friendly, caring and kind. They said they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet personal care needs.
People said staff met their needs and staff were knowledgeable about people’s lifestyles. Staffing levels were enough to always provide people with the care they needed.
People were confident that any concerns they had would be properly followed up. They were satisfied with how the service was run. Staff members said they had been supported in their work by the management team.
Audits to measure that a quality service had been provided to people were carried out. Management worked in partnership with other agencies so that people got the support they required. Management took action on the issues identified during the inspection visit.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The service was rated Good at the last inspection. Our last report was published for the inspection of November 2016.
Why we inspected.
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up.
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This inspection took place on 13 October 2016 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 19 November 2013 the provider was meeting the legal requirements we inspected.
Western Mount Lodge is registered to provide accommodation for up to 18 adults with mental ill health who require nursing or personal care. There were 16 people living in the home at the time of our inspection.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People’s care was planned to meet their needs. Potential risks were identified and management plans were in place to guide staff on the best way to reduce the risks. Staff understood their role in protecting people from harm and poor care. There were recruitment procedures in place to ensure staff were suitable to work within a caring environment. People received their medicines because there were safe processes in place for storage, administration and stock control.
Staff received the training and support they required to care for people effectively. People were provided with a choice of nutritious food and plentiful drinks. Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent from people and supporting them with their decision making when required.
People were encouraged to improve their physical health and had access to healthcare professionals to support their mental and psychological needs. Staff had formed good relationships with people and provided kind and compassionate care which promoted people’s dignity and privacy. Relatives were kept informed about people’s care and were welcomed when they visited the home.
Staff knew people well and provided care which was regularly reviewed to ensure it met their preferences and needs. People were provided with a choice of activities and outings to prevent social isolation but staff respected their choice if they did not want to participate. People and their relatives were encouraged to raise concerns and complaints which were shared with staff as a learning opportunity.
Everyone thought the home was well managed and felt the registered manager and provider were approachable and keen to listen to the views of others. People were given opportunities to comment on the care they received. There were audits in place to monitor the quality of the service to drive improvements in care.
Western Mount is a care home with nursing, providing accommodation for 18 people. There were 15 people in residence when we visited, and one person was in hospital. The service provided care and support to adults who had enduring mental health needs.
The service had a registered manager in post. There were clear management structures offering support and leadership. This meant the home had a positive, empowering culture. Records showed that CQC had been notified, as required by law, of all the incidents in the home that could affect the health, safety and welfare of people.
People told us the staff understood them; they confirmed the staff were kind and thoughtful and treated them with respect. People spoke positively about the care and support delivered to them.
People using the service were consulted about the management of the service and could influence the service delivery.
There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. People were protected against the risk of restraint because the provider had made suitable arrangements for staff to respond appropriately to people whose behaviour may challenge others.
People were supported to take informed risks to ensure they were not restricted and had the capacity to do so. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was being adhered to, to ensure staff made decisions based on people’s best interests. The Act was introduced to protect people who lack capacity to make certain decisions because of illness or disability.
The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s human rights were therefore properly recognised, respected and promoted.
The home environment was safe and well maintained. There were enough staff to support people safely and meet their needs.
The staff were kind and respectful to people when they were supporting them. There were policies, procedures and training in place to support staff to respect people’s privacy and dignity.
Staff were able to describe examples of where they had responded to what was important to individuals living in the home. People knew who to speak to if they wanted to raise a concern and there were processes in place for responding to concerns.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Action plans, in response to audits and incidents were followed up and ensured continuous improvement. Staff were supported to challenge when they felt there could be improvements, there was an open and transparent culture in the home.
External professionals told us they were pleased with the service and one told us 'I'm very impressed with how they care for people'.
Most people told us they liked the food, although one person said 'The food could be better'. The serving of the lunch time meal was observed and people told us they enjoyed it. One person told us "The food is really nice" and another said "The meals are good".
We found the premises were clean and hygienic and staff knew how to prevent the spread of infection.
Records we saw were clear, legible and up to date and covered all aspects of running the service, such as the recruitment and training of staff and safety of the premises.
.
One person told us that the support they received was 'very good' and they confirmed that appropriate advice and guidance was sought from health professionals. Another told us 'staff are good'. Two people said 'I feel safe'.
People we spoke with confirmed they knew how to make a complaint and one told us the manager 'sorts things out'.