You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 2 August 2018

Montrose Care home is a residential care home for 22 older people with dementia and sensory impairment. There are two floors with the first floor having access via stairs or a lift. There is a communal living and dining area and a lounge leading out onto the gardens. There are various smaller seating areas throughout the ground floor. There were 17 people living at the home at time of inspection.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and the actions needed if abuse was suspected.

There were enough staff to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

When people were at risk of falling, malnutrition or skin damage staff understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm and plans were in place.

The service was responsive when things went wrong and reviewed practices in a timely manner.

Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained staff. Medication competency checks took place together with daily audits to ensure safety with medicines.

People had been involved in assessments of their care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. The service worked well with professionals such as doctors, nurses and social workers.

Care was provided by staff who had received an induction and on-going training that enabled them to carry out their role effectively. Staff felt confident in their roles. Staff knowledge was routinely checked.

People had their eating and drinking needs understood and met. People were happy with the quality of the food and regular satisfaction surveys were in place. People living in the home had daily contact with the chef to discuss nutrition needs and preferences.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Opportunities to work in partnership with other organisations took place to ensure positive outcomes for people using the service.

People's rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were understood and were in place as appropriate.

People and their families described the staff as caring, kind and friendly and the atmosphere of the home as homely. People were able to express their views about their care and felt in control of their day to day lives. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected.

People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about how they were able to communicate their needs, their life histories and the things and people important to them.

A complaints process was in place and people felt they would be listened to and actions taken if they raised concerns. The service actively encouraged feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals.

People’s end of life wishes were known including their individual spiritual and cultural wishes.

The home was in the process of reviewing the activities they offered people and were planning on making improvements to their activity programme. A dedicated member of staff had been appointed to co-ordinate this.

The service had an open and positive culture that encouraged the involvement of people, their families, staff and other professional organisations. Relatives and professionals were confident in the service.

Leadership was visible and promoted teamwork. Staff spoke positively about the management team and felt supported.

Audits and quality assurance processes were effective in driving service improvements. Outcomes had clear actions that were followed and reviewed.

The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services.

Inspection areas



Updated 2 August 2018

The service was safe.

All areas of the home were kept clean to minimise the risks of the spread of infection.

There were sufficient staff available to meet people�s assessed care and support needs.

Staff had completed safeguarding adults training and were able to tell us how they would recognise and report abuse.

Medicines were managed safely, securely stored, correctly recorded and only administered by staff that were trained and competent to give medicines.

Lessons were learnt and improvements were made when things went wrong.



Updated 2 August 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs and choices were assessed and effective systems were in place to deliver good care and treatment.

The service was acting in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff received training and supervision to give them the skills and feel confident to carry out their roles.

Staff were supported and given opportunities for additional training and personal development.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and dietary needs were met.

The service worked within and across other healthcare services to deliver effective care.

The premises met people�s needs and they were able to access different areas of the home freely.

People were supported to access health care services and other professionals when required.



Updated 2 August 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff that treated them with kindness, respect and compassion.

Staff had a good understanding of the people they cared for and supported them in decisions about how they liked to live their lives.

People were supported by staff who respected their privacy and dignity.



Updated 2 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People were supported by staff who a person centred approach to deliver the care and support they required.

People were supported by staff that recognised and responded to their changing needs.

People were supported to access the community and take part in activities within the home.

A complaints procedure was in place. Relatives, professionals and people told us they felt able to raise concerns with the manager.

People�s end of life preferences had been discussed and plans put into place.



Updated 2 August 2018

The service was well led.

The management team promoted inclusion and encouraged an open working environment.

Staff received feedback from the management and felt recognised and valued for their work.

Quality assurance systems were in place which ensured the management had a good oversight of the service.

The home was led by a management team which was approachable and respected by the people, relatives and staff.

The home was continuously working to learn, improve and measure the delivery of care to people.