Mountfield

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant most 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 assessed and reviewed people’s needs with them including around their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs.

People told us they felt involved in their care, or that of their family member, although not necessarily via formal care plan reviews. We saw that most aspects of people’s lives had been assessed and regularly reviewed as required. However, whilst people’s health needs were recorded in their care plan, people would benefit from having dedicated care plans to diagnosed health conditions.

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.

For example, we saw that the service used nationally recognised assessment tools to support people’s skin integrity and nutrition. Our observations also confirmed that people had enough to eat and drink and that they were offered choice in relation to this.

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. However, relatives and health professionals told us that some staff knew people’s needs better than others which sometimes impacted on the consistency of the care delivered.

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 agreed that the service tried hard to meet people’s health needs but were sometimes impacted by delays from other stakeholders such as district nurses or the ambulance service. However, we saw that people had access to a variety health and wellbeing professionals and that referrals were made promptly and appropriately; the health professionals who provided us with feedback confirmed this.

Whilst the provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment, they did not always ensure that outcomes were consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

This was because the care delivered relied too heavily on the proactiveness of the staff member delivering it. Feedback and evidence showed that despite all staff receiving an appropriate induction, training, support and supervision, care delivery was inconsistent. One relative told us, ‘It is very noticeable that even as a visitor the work ethic [amongst staff] is very different.’ Another relative said, “Some staff are apathetic.”

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

People told us staff sought consent when providing care and support even though this may be in the form of explaining what was happening due to people living with dementia. Records showed that formal and legal consent to care and treatment was also in place.