We carried out a review of the data available to us about Mount Pleasant Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Mount Pleasant Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Mount Pleasant Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 29 people aged 65 and over at the time of this inspection. The service can support up to 50 people.
Mount Pleasant Care Home accommodates people in purpose-built accommodation over two floors.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were cared for safely. The service had a safeguarding policy and procedure in place. Staff attended safeguarding training and were confident in identifying and reporting abuse. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were suitably managed. Staff were recruited safely. There was good infection control practice in the service including up to date COVID-19 guidance.
The service was well led. People’s relatives and staff gave consistently positive feedback about their confidence in the registered manager. Systems had been introduced to improve outcomes for people. People who used the service, their relatives and staff were given the opportunity to give feedback about the service and suggest improvements.
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.
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 2 July 2019).
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to the deployment of sufficient staffing, meeting people’s care needs safely and accurate record keeping. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
The overall rating for the service has not changed from good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see the safe and well led sections of this full report.
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.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Mount Pleasant Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
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.
About the service
Mount Pleasant is registered for 50 beds in one adapted building over two floors and provides personal care and accommodation for older people who may be living with dementia. On the day of our visit 40 people were using the service. The ground floor of the home specialised in providing care to people living with dementia.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service met the characteristics of ‘Good’. People’s safety was protected; as staff received training and understood their role in reporting any concerns to protect people from harm. Accidents and incidents were analysed to look for any patterns or trends and enable the provider to minimise the risk of future incidents. Identified risks were assessed and managed to promote people’s safety. People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed. Recruitment checks looked at the suitability of staff to protect people that used the service. Infection control procedures were followed to minimise the risk of people acquiring an infection.
People enjoyed their meals and they were consulted about the meals provided, to ensure they met their preferences and dietary needs. Drinks were available to people throughout the day and where needed people were prompted to drink, to ensure they remained hydrated. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and were supported in the least restrictive way possible. When people were unable to make specific decisions about their care; assessments were completed with the relevant people, to ensure decisions were made in their best interests. People and their representatives were involved in their care to enable them to receive support in their preferred way. Healthcare services were available to people and they received coordinated support, to ensure their preferences and needs were met.
People were provided with opportunities to take part in social activities, to enhance their well-being. Information was available in an accessible format to enhance people’s understanding. People were treated with consideration and respect by the staff team and their dignity and privacy was respected. People were enabled to maintain their faith needs and were supported to maintain relationships with people that were important to them. People and their representatives were encouraged to give their views about the service. This included raising any concerns they had.
Systems were in place and used effectively to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvement.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 7 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.
We inspected this service on 14 November 2016. This was an unannounced inspection. At our previous inspection on the 27 May 2015 the provider was not meeting all the regulations relating to the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This was because risk assessments and care plans were not fully completed to guide staff on how to support people when they demonstrated behaviour that put themselves or others at risk. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made in this area, however further improvements were needed in other areas of the service. We saw that behaviour management plans were in place where needed. This provided staff with guidance on how to support people in a consistent way but staff had not been provided with training to support people who demonstrated behaviours that put themselves and others at risk. This had been recognised by the registered manager, who was in the process of organising training for the staff team.
The service was registered to provide accommodation for up to 50 people. The home specialises in caring for older people including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people using the service.
The service had 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.
People felt safe with the staff that supported them and told us that the staff were available to them. Staff understood what constituted abuse or poor practice and systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Medicines were managed safely and people were given their medicine as and when needed. The provider had undertaken thorough recruitment checks to ensure that as far as possible, they employed staff that were suitable to support people.
Assessments were in place that identified risks to people’s health and safety and care plans directed staff on how to minimise identified risks. Staff told us they had all the equipment they needed to assist people safely and understood about people’s individual risks. Staff understood people’s needs and preferences and in most areas were provided with training and supervision, to support and develop their skills.
Staff gained people’s verbal consent before supporting them with any care tasks and helped them to make their own decisions when possible. Where people were unable to make decisions independently they were supported in their best interests and in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act.
People were supported to eat and drink what they liked. Where concerns were identified, people received support from health care professionals to ensure their well-being was maintained. Health concerns were monitored and people received specialist health care intervention when this was needed.
Staff were caring in their approach and supported people to maintain their dignity and privacy. People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them and to take part in social activities. The provider sought people’s opinions to bring about change.
Quality monitoring checks were completed by the provider and registered manager and when needed action taken to make improvements. People knew how to complain and we saw when complaints were made these were responded to in line with the provider’s policy.
This inspection took place on 27 May 2015 and was unannounced.
Mount Pleasant is a care home that provides residential care for up to 50 people. The home specialises in caring for older people including those with people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 46 people in residence.
A registered manager was 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. The registered manager was not at the home when we visited, so we spoke with the acting general manager who was deputising in their place.
People were happy and told us that they felt safe. Staff were able to explain how they kept people safe from abuse, and knew what external assistance there was to follow up and report suspected abuse. Staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities and trained to look after people and protect them from harm and abuse.
Staff were recruited in accordance with the provider’s recruitment procedures that ensured staff were qualified and suitable to work at the home. We observed there to be sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs and worked in a co-ordinated manner.
Medicines were ordered, stored and administered safely.
Staff received an appropriate induction and ongoing training for their job role, and all could speak a range of English and Asian languages. Staff had access to people’s care records and were knowledgeable about people’s needs that were important to them.
Staff communicated people’s dietary needs appropriately, which protected them from the risk of losing weight. People’s care and support needs had been assessed and people were involved in the development of their plan of care. People told us they were satisfied with the care provided.
People were provided with a choice of meals that met their dietary needs. There were drinks and snacks available throughout the day and night. The catering staff were provided with up to date information about people’s dietary needs.
We noted that the food came out of the kitchen plated, so there was no opportunity for people to help themselves to vegetables and other accompaniments. Staff brought out gravy and asked people where they wanted it. We saw staff gave gentle prompting for people to eat throughout the meal and people used adapted cutlery and crockery that ensured they remained independent when eating.
People felt staff were kind and caring, and their privacy and dignity was respected in the delivery of care and their choice of lifestyle. Relatives we spoke with were also complimentary about the staff and the care offered to their relatives.
We observed staff speak to, and assist people in a kind, caring and compassionate way, and people told us that care workers were polite, respectful and protected their privacy. We saw that people’s dignity and privacy was respected which promoted their wellbeing.
Staff had a good understanding of people’s care needs, though some documents within the care plan document lacked detail and explanation. There was an overall inconsistency throughout the person centred care planning process, which lead to care planning not being consistent and different plans working in harmony.
People told us that they had developed good relationships with staff.
People were involved in the review of their care plan, and when appropriate were happy for their relatives to be involved. We observed staff offered people everyday choices and respected their decisions.
People told us that they were able to pursue their hobbies and interests that was important to them. These included the opportunity to maintain contact with family and friends as visitors were welcome without undue restrictions.
Staff told us they had access to information about people’s care and support needs and what was important to people. Care staff were supported and trained to ensure their knowledge, skills and practice in the delivery of care was kept up to date. Staff knew they could make comments or raise concerns with the management team about the way the service was run and knew it would be acted on.
The provider had developed opportunities for people to express their views about the service. These included the views and suggestions from people using the service, their relatives and health and social care professionals.
Staff sought appropriate medical advice and support from health care professionals. Care plans included the changes to peoples care and treatment, and people attended routine health checks.
People were confident to raise any issues, concerns or to make complaints. People said they felt staff listened to them and responded promptly.
People who used the service and their visiting relatives spoke positively about the open culture and communication with the staff. We noted that the provider interacted politely with people and they responded well to him. When we spoke to the provider, it was clear he knew people and their relatives, by the way in which they conversed.
The provider had a clear management structure within the home, which meant that the staff were aware who to contact out of hours. Care staff understood their roles and responsibilities and knew how to access support. Staff had access to people’s care plans and received regular updates about people’s care needs.
There were effective systems in place for monitoring of the building and equipment which meant people lived in an environment which was regularly maintained. However the internal audits and monitoring of person centred planning did not reveal areas that were not fully detailed.
Staff were aware of the reporting procedure for faults and repairs and had access to external contractors for maintenance and to manage any emergency repairs.