Montpellier Manor

We found the following examples of good practice.

Procedures were in place to support visitors to access the service safely. Admissions into the service were carried out safely and followed government guidance.

People were supported to maintain contact with loved ones. This included telephone and video calls and face to face visits using a visiting pod. The service had followed government guidance for face to face visits inside the service.

Staff understood the importance of social distancing. Small changes to the environment had been made to support social distancing. People continued to participate in activities and spent time in communal areas and outside in the garden and courtyard.

The needs of people and staff had been reviewed. Risk assessments were in place where needed. Information was regularly shared with people, relatives and staff. The well-being of people and staff had been acknowledged and a variety of resources were in place to support with this.

There was enough personal protective equipment (PPE) available throughout the service and staff were observed using it correctly. All staff had participated in training in infection prevention and control and donning and doffing PPE safely. Vaccinations were taking place. The service had followed the correct guidance for supporting people without capacity to participate in testing and vaccinating.

The home was clean throughout. Robust cleaning regimes were in place, which included increased cleaning of ‘high touch’ and visiting areas.

The service had been very proactive in learning throughout the pandemic. Lessons had been learned and improvements had continued to take place. The service had offered support to other services to share their knowledge and learning. Quality assurance measures had supported good infection control measures to be maintained.

Montpellier Manor is a purpose-built care home. It is a three-story building providing care and accommodation for up to 85 people assessed as requiring residential care. This includes people living with a dementia type illness. At time of our inspection there were 39 people living at Montpellier Manor.

Montpellier Manor is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This is the first time the service has been inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) since it’s registration in April 2018.

Safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures were in place to help protect people from harm. Staff knew how to identify and report suspected abuse. The people we spoke with during this inspection told us they felt the service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed and staff knew what to do to reduce identified risks to people. Environmental risk assessments were in place covering tasks carried out by staff. Maintenance and equipment checks were undertaken to help ensure the environment was safe. Emergency contingency plans were in place. Staff followed infection control practices to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Medicines were managed safely.

We received mixed feedback on staffing levels from people and staff. The staffing levels provided within the home met the service’s dependency tool. We found during this inspection that people’s needs were responded to quickly. Recruitment practices helped ensure that suitable staff were employed. Pre-employment checks were made to reduce the likelihood of the service employing staff who were unsuitable to work with vulnerable people.

People’s care files were personalised and contained the information staff needed to support them well. 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. The policies and practices of the service helped to ensure that everyone was treated equally.

People had access to and the provider worked with a range of healthcare services such as GPs, district nurses and mental health professionals. People’s nutritional needs were met.

People were supported by a regular team of staff who were knowledgeable about their likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff were kind and respectful towards people. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Staff encouraged people to access a range of activities.

The premises were very spacious, clean and tidy. The environment had been thoughtfully designed to meet the needs of people.

End-of-life care procedures were in place. People who chose to plan this area of their lives had very detailed, sensitive care plans in place.

Most of the staff we spoke with told us that the management team supported them well.

Feedback was sought to monitor and improve the service. Meetings for people, relatives and staff took place.

Following reviews of accidents and incidents themes and trends were addressed and lessons were learnt. A clear complaints policy and procedure was in place and followed by the provider. Robust quality assurance systems were in place.