• Care Home
  • Care home

Mountview

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1-2 Stocksfield Square, Mount View Terrace, Stocksfield, Northumberland, NE43 7HL (01661) 844134

Provided and run by:
Newlife Care Services Limited

All Inspections

26 June 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Mountview is a care home providing residential care for up to 10 adults with learning disabilities or other complex needs. At the time of the inspection there were 9 people living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

Right Support

The model of care and setting maximised people’s choice, control and independence. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported with their medicines and able to take part in activities in their local area. Risk which was identified was recorded and monitored to keep people safe. The home was kept clean and tidy and staff followed infection control procedures.

Right care:

People received care which was person centred and promoted their dignity, privacy and human rights. Staff were kind and compassionate. Each person had an individual care plan detailing their preferences and how to support them if they were in distress. People also had access to a range of health and social care professionals. One healthcare professional said, “The staff responded to my request to work on someone’s mouthcare, gradually improving this step by step.”

People were kept safe by suitably recruited staff who had received the necessary training to perform their roles well. A recent safeguarding concern had been reported regarding 2 staff. This had been dealt with appropriately by the registered manager and provider.

Right culture:

The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of leaders and support staff ensured people using the service led confident, inclusive and empowered lives. The environment was welcoming. People, where possible, and those important to them, including advocates, were involved in planning their care and support. People’s care and the need to keep them happy and healthy was the priority for staff. Quality assurance checks were in place to continually review the service provided and make any changes as necessary.

We received a few negative comments regarding communication which the registered manager was made aware of to address.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 6 July 2019).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service and to follow up on recent concerns we had received about the care and treatment people received at the home.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Mountview on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

17 June 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Mountview is a residential care home providing personal care and accommodation to people with a learning disability and/or autism.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a larger home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 10 people. Nine people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the building fit into the local residential area and other larger domestic homes of a similar size and design. There were deliberately no identifying signs, intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff did not wear anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Staff understood how to minimise risks and keep people safe without restricting them. Medicines were managed safely and people lived in an environment that was homely and clean.

People were supported by well trained staff who understood their needs and preferences. People’s healthcare needs were assessed and were appropriate healthcare specialists were involved in people’s care. Staff had worked together to research and develop a sensory room which people enjoyed spending time in.

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

Staff were very fond of people and made sure people were treated with dignity, respect and patience. A family member said, “Mountview wouldn’t be the place it is without the staff, they really are lovely and manage the care very well.”

Some care plans were very detailed and specific to people’s needs. Others needed some further explanation about people’s communication needs. The registered manager and deputy manager acknowledged this and prioritised the review of care plans. People were supported to maintain community links and develop new friendships. No complaints had been received since the last inspection.

A range of audits were used to assess the quality of the service and to identify any improvements that were needed. Action plans, identified what improvements were needed and progress was closely monitored.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 23 December 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

3 November 2016

During a routine inspection

Mountview is based in Stocksfield, Northumberland and provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to 10 people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were ten people in receipt of care living at the service. This inspection took place on 3 and 4 November and was unannounced.

Our last comprehensive inspection of this service was in August 2015 where one breach of Regulations under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 was identified, namely Regulation 12, Safe care and treatment. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was now meeting legal requirements.

A registered manager was in post who had been registered with the Commission since April 2016, in line with the requirements of the provider's registration. 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.

Each person that we spoke with told us, or indicated (where they were not able to communicate with us verbally), that they felt safe and comfortable in the presence of staff. Policies and procedures were in place to protect vulnerable adults from harm and abuse. Staff were trained in safeguarding and they were aware of their own personal responsibility to report matters of a safeguarding nature.

Risks that people were exposed to in their daily lives and their environments had been appropriately assessed and measures put in place to mitigate these risks. Positive risk taking was promoted throughout the service and risk assessments were appropriately drafted, reviewed and updated.

Health and safety checks and the servicing of equipment within the home was carried out regularly to support people to remain safe. Any accidents or incidents that occurred were investigated and measures put in place to prevent repeat events. Emergency planning had been considered and guidance was in place for staff to follow should a range of eventualities occur.

Staffing levels were appropriate at the time of our visit and ensured that people's needs were met. Recruitment procedures were robust and enabled the provider to recruit staff of the correct calibre and skill sets to support the people in receipt of care from the service. Vetting checks were carried out to ensure that staff were not barred from working with vulnerable people. Training, supervision and appraisal of staff was carried out regularly. Staff said they felt supported in their roles.

The management of medicines was safe and people received the right medicines they needed, at the right times.

People's care was person-centred and appropriate to their needs. Their general healthcare needs were met. Evidence was available to demonstrate that people were supported to access routine medical support, such as that from a dentist or optician, as well as more specialist support, such as that from a speech and language therapist should this be required.

Staff displayed an in-depth knowledge of people and their needs. They relayed information about people's needs and steps they took to support them, which tallied with our own observations and documented information held within people’s care records. People's nutritional needs were met and managed well. Where necessary, food and fluid charts were used to monitor that people ate and drank in sufficient amounts to remain healthy.

Staff and people enjoyed good relationships and staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were supported to live as independently as possible and social inclusion and community involvement was promoted.

CQC monitors the application of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and deprivation of liberty safeguards. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was appropriately applied and applications to deprive people of their liberty lawfully had been made to prevent them from coming to any harm where they lacked capacity. The service understood their legal responsibility under this act and they assessed people’s capacity when their care commenced and on an on-going basis when necessary. Decisions that needed to be made in people’s best interests had been undertaken and records about such decision making were maintained.

Care records were well maintained and regularly reviewed. Pre-admission assessments and detailed care plans and risk assessments were available to staff so that they had the information they needed to support people appropriately.

A complaints policy was in place and other feedback channels existed for staff, people, relatives and external healthcare professionals to express their views. These included meetings and surveys. The registered manager was well thought of amongst the staff team and had an in-depth knowledge of the service and people in receipt of care.

Quality assurance systems were in place although these could have been more detailed in places. The provider had overlooked the submission of some notifications, related to other incidents, in line with Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. We have made a recommendation about this and are dealing with this matter outside of the inspection process.

10 and 11 August 2015

During a routine inspection

Stocksfield Square provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to 10 people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were nine people living at the service.

This inspection took place on 10 and 11 August 2015 and was unannounced.

The last full inspection of this service was in July 2013. We found two breaches in relation to supporting workers and the safety and suitability of premises. In January 2014 we visited the service again to make sure the provider had met the requirements of the two regulations that had previously been breached, and we found that they had.

A registered manager is required under this service’s registration with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). At the time of our inspection the name of a registered manager appeared on our register and website, who had not been in post since May 2015. Their name appears because they had not formally cancelled their registration with the CQC after leaving the organisation. We are pursuing this matter separately with the provider. The deputy manager of this home was covering the registered manager’s post, whilst it remained vacant and recruitment was undertaken. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

Most people were unable to tell us what they thought about living at the home as they could not communicate verbally due to the nature of their condition. Those who could, told us they felt safe living at the home. There were systems in place to protect people from abuse and channels through which staff could raise concerns. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from abuse.

People’s needs and the risks they were exposed to when going about their daily lives had been appropriately assessed. Regular health and safety checks were carried out on the premises and on equipment used during care delivery. However, the provider had failed to identify concerns related to the premises and they had not ensured the premises were safe and secure. Not all environmental risks within the home had been assessed and not all areas of the home and equipment that people came into contact with were clean. This exposed people to the risk of catching an infection. This was a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, which is entitled ‘Safe care and treatment’. You can see the action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Medicines were managed and administered safely. Recruitment processes were thorough and included checks to ensure that staff employed were of good character, appropriately skilled and physically and mentally fit. Staffing levels were determined by people’s needs. Staff records showed they received regular training and that training was up to date. Supervisions for staff were conducted regularly and staff confirmed they could feedback their views during these meetings with the deputy manager.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and to report on what we find. MCA is a law that protects and supports people who do not have ability to make their own decisions and to ensure decisions are made in their ‘best interests’. It also ensures unlawful restrictions are not placed on people in care homes and hospitals. We found that applications had been made for DoLS for all of the people living at the home. In addition, people’s ability to make informed decisions had been assessed and the ‘best interest’ decision process had been followed and details of individual decisions documented within people’s care records.

Staff received appropriate training and supervision which was up to date. An appraisal system was in place and following the change in management, the deputy manager told us that appraisals were due to be carried out in the very near future.

Records confirmed that people’s general healthcare needs were met and care plans and risk assessments related to people’s care were regularly reviewed. People’s general practitioners were contacted where there were concerns about their welfare and other healthcare professionals were also involved in their care, such as occupational therapists. People’s nutritional needs were met and where necessary, their weight and food and fluid consumption was monitored to ensure that they remained healthy. Specialist nutritional advice and input to people’s care was sought and implemented where necessary.

Our observations confirmed people experienced care and treatment that protected and promoted their privacy and dignity. Staff displayed caring and compassionate attitudes towards people and people’s relatives spoke highly of the staff team. People had individualised care plans and risk assessments and staff were very aware of people’s individual needs. People enjoyed trips out into the community with the support of staff and several people attended day care centres on a weekly basis and participated in a range of activities.

We received positive feedback about the leadership and current management arrangements in the home, from people, their relatives and staff. A complaints policy and procedure was in place but there had not been any complaints made about the service in the last 12 months for us to review. The deputy manager told us that complaints about the service were rare.

Systems were in place to monitor the service provided and care delivered. However, not all issues were identified and addressed by the provider. For example, we identified risks associated with the premises and infection control which had not been identified and addressed by management via the audits and checks that were in place.

We recommend the provider revisits their quality assurance systems and processes to ensure that all issues are appropriately identified and addressed in a timely manner.

14 January 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We had asked the provider to send us a report by 17 October 2013, setting out the action they will take to meet the standards. The provider supplied an action plan to meet the standards. This inspection was to check to make sure that this action was taken.

The premises had been improved and provided a warm, comfortable, personalised and clean environment.

At the time of this visit there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available to meet people's needs. Staff responded promptly to requests for assistance. Staff received adequate supervision or appraisal.

31 July 2013

During a routine inspection

In this report the name of the registered manager does not appear who were in post and managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name does not appear because they were still in the process of becoming the registered manager on our register.

We saw people were relaxed and there were good interactions between people who used the service and staff. We saw staff consulted people before they provided care and support.

We found people's needs were assessed and care was planned in line with their needs. One person told us, "I am happy here.' Care plans were regularly updated and contained clear information about individuals' care.

The premises were in need of improvement but did provide a warm, comfortable, personalised and clean environment.

At the time of this visit there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available to meet people's needs. Staff responded promptly to requests for assistance. Staff did not receive adequate supervision or appraisal.

People were asked their views about the service provided and these were taken account of. The provider had systems in place to monitor care delivery and ensure the health, welfare and safety of people who used the service was maintained.

5 February 2013

During a routine inspection

People were not able to communicate with us about the care they received, due to the complexity and nature of their condition. There were no relatives or advocates available for us to speak to during our inspection. Consequently we used observations to measure people's experiences when in receipt of care from this service.

During our inspection we spoke with three members of staff and looked at the care records for three people. We found that people were involved in decisions about their care whenever possible and their privacy and dignity was respected.

We found people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans. One staff member said, "We tend to know who likes what so we can accommodate their needs but we always ask, we don't assume, we work on different ways of communicating."

We saw the building was well maintained and designed to be accessible to all people.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work.

The service had a complaints system in place and staff confirmed they were happy in dealing with any complaints. One staff member said, "I would do a number of things, I could write it down and pass it to the manager, refer them to the manager or if I thought I could rectify it then I would do my best to help them."

4 January 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us they were happy with the care and attention they received at Stocksfield Square. They confirmed that they were given choices in life and staff supported them to take some risks and be independent.