Archived: The Mount

The care service had been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

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.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People told us they felt safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from harm.

Risk assessments were in place and these promoted people’s independence when at the service and when accessing the community. Medicines were managed safely. Incidents and accidents were reported and lessons learned were shared with staff. Safe recruitment practise was followed and there was enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Staff were trained and supported to carry out their roles. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. People’s consent for support was sought in line with legislation and guidance.

People using the service said staff were kind and caring and that staff respected their privacy and dignity. We saw and heard positive interactions between staff and people.

Care and support plans were person centred and detailed people’s personal goals. Staff knew people well and understood their needs. People confirmed that staff supported them as they wanted. Complaints were reported, investigated and resolved. Feedback from people and their relatives was sought.

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.

There were robust quality assurance processes in place. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager. The provider’s values were embedded in the day to day support of people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The Mount is a care home for up to six people with a mild to moderate learning disability, autism or sensory impairment. Five people were accommodated when we completed this inspection.

There was a registered manager. 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. There were no legal breaches of legal requirements at the last inspection in June 2014.

People were safeguarded from harm or abuse because staff were aware of their responsibilities to report any concerns. Risk assessments were completed which reduced risk for people helping to keep them safe and independent. Any accidents and incidents were recorded and had sufficient information to ensure preventative measures were identified. Medicines were administered safely and each care plan identified how people liked to take their medicines. Regular checks of medicines were completed to help ensure people had them when required.

The five people accommodated were supported by sufficient staff and were able to access the community with them. There were three staff every morning and two or three in the afternoons, which depended on peoples support for activities. People received care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to carry out their role. Staff told us the training was good. People were protected by thorough recruitment practices and staff induction to the service.

Staff were aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to protect people when they needed support for certain decisions in their best interest. People made everyday decisions as staff knew how to effectively communicate with them. People told us they liked the food and were able to make choices about what they had to eat. There were healthy food choices and people helped to prepare meals. We observed people and staff enjoyed eating their meals together each day.

Staff responded to people in a calm and compassionate manner consistently demonstrating respect. Staff knew peoples individual communication skills, abilities and preferences. People were supported to choose activities they liked and had a varied and busy timetable in the community. People told us “I like the staff they are kind”, “staff are all nice and all kind” and “I do like living here”.

People had personalised care plans and staff supported them to be involved in making decisions about their care. Peoples care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and people knew they could talk to staff at any time and make changes. There was a complaints procedure and an easy read version for people. Complaints and concerns were taken seriously and used as an opportunity to improve the service.

Quality checks were completed and examples told us that action plans identified where changes were made to address any shortfalls. People were given the opportunity to answer questions about the service in an appropriate way to make sure they were satisfied. Relatives, supporters and health and social care professionals were asked for their opinion about the service. Regular staff meetings were held for staff to be involved in the running of the home and improvements were identified and acted upon. The registered manager was approachable and supported staff, people and their relatives through effective communication.

at there.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. There were six people living at The Mount at the time of our inspection.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

The evidence that we saw confirmed that there were systems in place to gain and review consent from people or their advocates; and that their decisions were respected. Where people lacked the capacity to make complex decisions then appropriate others, such as relatives and social and healthcare professionals were involved to ensure people's best interests were considered.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. While no applications have needed to be submitted by The Mount, policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had received training in relation to DoLS, mental capacity and safeguarding.

We looked at the management of medicines and our findings confirmed that systems were in place that ensured people received their medicines when they needed them and in a safe way.

We found that systems were in place to assess risks to people who lived in the home, visitors and staff. This meant that people benefited from safe care, treatment and support, due to effective management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

Is the service effective?

We found that staff were trained and had received good support from the management team in order to carry out their role effectively. Staff demonstrated an awareness of people's needs and provided appropriate support. People were supported to access health and social care professionals when required.

People told us they liked living at The Mount. One said ''This is a good place; you have your own space if you want it.'' Another said ''It's good here'' and ''fantastic rooms.'' One healthcare professional had commented 'The Mount always feels like a proper home'

We found that people were supported to access the local community. Some people had employment and had developed relationships. People were also able to access the home's communal areas and large gardens. This enabled them to experience a degree of social interaction and to find quiet, relaxing areas if needed.

Is the service caring?

We found that support was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Where applicable, people's care plans contained related risk assessments. For example; one person's plan described the support they needed in relation to a medical condition and the associated risks. Another plan contained information relating to a person's risks when accessing the community.

People living at the home made positive comments about the staff such as ''The staff are nice'' and ''I like the staff.'' A healthcare professional had commented on a survey 'I have been a regular visitor to The Mount for over 10 years and I have always found staff cheerful, helpful and the residents happy and well looked after.'

Is the service responsive?

We found that the service took action in response to the findings of quality assurance audits, service user meetings and complaints and concerns. This protected people's welfare and enhanced practice.

Staff members we spoke with told us that they felt they were listened to and that the manager responded to any suggestions they had. One told us ''You're able to have your say and action is taken, or there is an explanation of why not.''

Is the service well-led?

We found that there were regular quality assurance processes in place to monitor the service provided to those living at the home.

The staff received regular supervision and support. They were positive about the manager and felt that they were able to speak with her at any time; one said ''Brilliant team, wonderful manager.'' We saw that staff were supported to receive regular training and undertake further qualifications to enable them to meet the needs of people living at The Mount.

Observation during the day showed that there was a good relationship between the member of staff and people living in the home. All of the interactions we witnessed were respectful and friendly. When speaking with staff they commented, "It's their home and they can do what they want", "Great people to work with" and "We help them to learn new skills".

We saw good examples of people being empowered to complete tasks themselves, with staff support if it was required.

People were protected from the risk of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were being maintained. Care plans were created with each person and they regularly reviewed them with staff. People we spoke with confirmed their care plans were accurate and they reviewed them with staff each month.

There was a system in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided to people who lived in the home. The results of the questionnaires sent to family asking them about the care provided was good evidence of this.

The home was well maintained and homely. It provided people with a safe environment that met their needs.

People in the home appeared relaxed and comfortable with the staff that supported them. People did not raise concerns with us about their care or welfare.

We spoke with three members of staff during our visit, this included the manager and two support staff. Staff were very motivated, caring and positive about working in the home and praised the teamwork and supportive atmosphere.

The staff were well trained, supervised and had been recruited in line with the providers policy.

People were fully protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were being maintained.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided to people who lived at the home.