Mountfield

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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. However, care plans did not consistently record enough person-centred information to ensure staff could provide appropriate care. This meant the provider could not be assured people always received the care they needed. This concern was also confirmed by some of the relatives we spoke with. The provider regularly used agency staff who may not know the needs of the people they were providing care and support to. We raised this with the management team who took appropriate and prompt action to rectify this including providing further training to staff around care planning and reviewing people’s care plans.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice. However, the people who used the service had limited opportunities to integrate with the local community and they did not always receive consistent care from the same group of permanent staff. This was due to the need for agency staff to be used. However, visiting clergy did attend the home to provide spiritual guidance, lead religious ceremonies and offer pastoral care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People had communication care plans in place that provided staff with information on how to support people. However, we noted that people did not have specific guidance provided for staff on how to support people in relation to the use of hearing aids and their communication support needs. We identified where a person had been without their hearing aid and staff lacked information on what action needed to be taken to ensure the person could communicate with staff and other people.

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. Whilst some relatives had raised complaints about the service and had differing opinions on how these had been managed, we saw complaints had been investigated and responded too with actions taken to make improvements. The provider had logged all complaints and actions taken in response. A complaints policy was also in place to support the process.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, we saw that the home was accessible for all with multiple areas for people to spend their time. People told us staff were available as when they needed them and that they responded promptly to their requests for support.

Whilst staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, the care delivery did not always ensure people received consistent outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. For example, we found instances where staff were not provided with enough information to support people living with dementia who may become distressed when supported with some aspects of their care needs.

People were not always 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. The service recognised that their end of life care plans did not always prompt staff to discuss all aspects of people’s end of life needs and wishes with them and their families; they had taken steps to address this. Whilst not everyone had an end of life care plan in place as required or wished for, relatives of those that had sadly passed away in the service told us they were happy with the care their family members had received at the end of their life.