Mountview Care Home

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 service as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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. Staff training strengthened the delivery of person-centred care. Care plans supported staff to assist people with routines considering any individual preferences or needs. Staff told us they felt enabled to provide personalised care. A staff member told us, “It was lovely the other day because a group of men and women got together in one of the lounges and talked about past events and issues. We sat with them and it helps us understand who people are; not just people living with dementia.” Activities were adapted where needed to reflect people’s preferences and abilities, although some people felt there were fewer external activities than there used to be and little 1-1 activities. The activities co-ordinator was clearly passionate about their role. On the day of our inspection, they had arranged an afternoon tea with invites to the local community as well as people, friends and families. A person told us, “I miss my community and helping with the flowers in the local church.” We saw the activity co-ordinator had arranged for the person to help make the flower display for the front desk and was delighted with this opportunity.

People had access to health and social care professionals as and when required, as well as regular contact when needed. Records we reviewed evidenced this. The staff team worked together, had regular meetings and used handover documentation to ensure continuity of care. The provider had systems in place to ensure healthcare professionals were enabled to share information electronically to promote good communication and care outcomes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and relatives did not raise concerns about accessing information. People’s care plans provided guidance around how they communicated. This included how staff should adjust communication when providing people with information and any specific communication needs, such as large print or pictorial. There were notice boards and signage around the service providing information and guidance for people. Some signage was not easily visible to people using the service and did not always support independent orientation. We raised this with the registered manager for review.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. There was a complaints policy and procedure for people and their relatives to use. A complaints log evidenced a record of concerns raised, progress and outcomes. People and relatives told us they felt able to raise concerns and these would be listened to and acted on. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The provider supported feedback through satisfaction surveys and suggestions. They used this feedback to make improvements to the service through ‘You said, we did’ approaches. A person told us, “I like the resident’s forum which is held about once a month to share information and make suggestions.” People’s care plans did not always demonstrate people’s involvement and consultation in reviews of their care. We raised this with the registered manager who agreed to develop this and evidence how people had been involved in care reviews.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Systems were in place to help ensure people were not prevented from receiving the care and support they needed due to their health or disability. The service management and staff told us they worked with external professionals to help ensure people received the relevant health and social care support they required. This was confirmed by people’s records which included support and guidance provided by external professionals who were involved in people’s care. The service was fully accessible for people including access to outside space. The registered manager was constantly reviewing the premises to ensure they were suitable and met people’s needs. For example, they had recently ungraded dining chairs as they found people were struggling to get in and out of them independently.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Information about people’s communication needs, cultural preferences, health conditions and any other factors that could increase the risk of inequality was gathered through initial assessments, regular reviews and ongoing conversations with people and their relatives. The registered manager and activities co-ordinator told us there was a focus on creating varied events for all people and opportunities to connect with the local community, including activities involving local young people and animals. We saw positive links had been involved in including the local community in events including celebrations and fetes and inviting religious organisations to enable people to practice their faith.

People were 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. People had information in their care plans that detailed their future wishes. A ReSPECT plan, Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment, was in place for most people which outlined care preferences for when they might be unable to express their wishes. This included information about end-of-life care and resuscitation. Families had been involved in this process and staff were aware of the details should an emergency suddenly occur. Staff had been provided with end-of-life training and worked closely with healthcare professionals to make sure they planned for and met people’s needs at the end of their lives.