Mountfield

Updated 10 March 2025

Date of assessment: 09 April to 30 April 2025. The service is a residential care home providing support to younger adults and older people living with dementia. There were 39 people living in the home at the time of this inspection. Whilst we found no impact or harm to people, some shortfalls were identified at this inspection and the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to governance.

We could not be assured that people received consistent person-centered care as care plans failed to provide staff with enough detail to ensure they received the individualised care they needed. This was particularly relevant given the service was using agency staff who may not know the people they were supporting. This had sometimes affected care delivery and there were some instances where people had not always received the individualised care they wished for. Furthermore, evidence showed care delivery was not consistent and was dependent on which staff were on shift. In addition, the service did not always make sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences.

However, people lived in a clean, spacious, and environmentally safe home that offered them opportunities to spend time alone or with others. Activities were available to those that chose to participate and people’s nutritional and hydration needs were met. People told us staff were kind and caring and showed them respect. Whilst some people told us they would like to see the management team leading their staff on the floor more, we found them to be proactive and responsive to our feedback. The management team were dedicated and keen to make improvements and we saw that some of the shortfalls we had identified at this inspection, they were aware of and had plans in place to address.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection.

Updated 10 March 2025

As part of this inspection we sought the feedback of people who lived at Mountfield and their relatives. The feedback we received was mixed and showed us that not everyone received a consistently good service.

People told us the level and quality of care delivered depended on which staff were on shift and that there were discrepancies between staff; they felt this was due to poor communication. People told us that where care had been previously agreed, this had not been consistently delivered by all staff. For example, 1 relative said, “Our concerns have been listened to and I can only praise the manager we dealt with highly. However, the agreed care plan is not always consistently followed.” Our inspection findings confirmed this.

People told us there were enough staff and that they were kind and caring although some had concerns about the level of engagement of some staff. The people who used the service told us staff showed them respect, maintained their dignity, and supported them with patience. However, some people told us that staff sometimes spoke in their first language, rather than English, when speaking amongst themselves, and in front of them, which they felt was inappropriate. Whilst the people who used the service told us they felt safe living at Mountfield, their relatives had mixed opinions on safety, particularly around unexplained injuries. However, where unexplained injuries had been found, we saw that the service had taken the appropriate action including referring these to the local authority safeguarding teams.

People agreed that the admission process was thorough, supportive and that they were made to feel welcome at Mountfield. Whilst there was an activities programme in place, some people told us it needed to be more varied with more activities taking place outside of the home. The people who used the service told us they enjoyed the food, that there was plenty of it and that they had choice. All the people we spoke with who lived at Mountfield told us they were happy living there. However, their relatives disagreed on whether they would recommend the home with some saying they would not due to the shortfalls identified at this inspection.