Mountdale Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

At this assessment the key question has improved too good. The service worked to provide care that promoted people’s health wellbeing and independence. People were provided with nutrition and hydration to meet their needs. 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.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Before people started using the service an assessment of their needs including communication needs was completed. People and their relatives were involved in planning the assessments of their care.

Staff had access to care plans and risk assessments to support people’s care. Staff showed us how they could view people’s care needs and record what actions they had taken on handheld devices.

The service had an electronic care planning system in place which helped them to plan people’s care in a person-centred way and alerted them to when care needed reviewing.

People told us the food at the service was very good. One person said, “The food here is excellent and plentiful.” Another person said, “I really like the food, we get lots of it and lots of teas and coffee.”

The service cook spoke to people daily to discuss their food requirements for the day. People were given choice of what they would like to eat. The cook catered for special dietary needs people may have and was kept up to date of these by the staff.

Staff monitored people’s food and fluid intake, and any issues were reported to the nurse in charge to escalate with the GP. Where people required special diets such as pureed food or diabetic diet this was provided. Should people have swallowing difficulties advice was sought from speech and language therapists.

People were supported by staff who understood their care and support needs. A relative told us, “We feel he's in safe hands now, the staff are very friendly and welcoming here and they do alert us if he's got any problems.”

Staff had the information they needed to support people through assessments prior to admissions. Each day staff had a verbal handover to update them of any changes in people care and support needs.

The provider had systems in place to assess referrals to the service to ensure their needs could be met. Where needed care was co-ordinated with other health professionals such as the GP or physiotherapist and palliative care team.

People were supported to access additional healthcare where needed to support their wellbeing.

Staff told us they had a good relationship with the GP who would do weekly reviews at the service and were accessible for staff to call for advice. Where people had specialist appointments such as mental health reviews or hospital appointments staff supported people to attend these.

People were supported to access equipment they may need to help their independence. Where needed a physiotherapist worked with people who had mobility needs and occupational therapist were contacted for assessments, when required. General health needs were supported such as access to chiropody or opticians and dentists.

Feedback from people was not regularly sought and when it was sought an analysis of people's feedback was not provided.

Staff used computerised care plans and had handheld devices to record support people were receiving. This system was able to flag when reviews were needed of risk assessments and care plans.

Although the service has systems in place to monitor care being provided audits of these did not provide details of actions taken or outcomes for people. For example, falls monitoring did not look at themes or trends to see if there were any links that could be addressed to improve outcomes for people.

People’s consent was obtained for their care and support. Where appropriate family and advocates were involved in making decisions on people’s care and support.

Staff Had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood the need to gain consent from people for care and to encourage people to make decisions for themselves. Where people were unable to do this best interest decisions were in place.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw that DoLS application had been made appropriately.