CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Montague House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were not always managed safely, and inspectors were not assured that people always received medicines as prescribed. Risk information in care plans and fire drill training were also not always complete, although there were enough staff and infection control arrangements were effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs and health were assessed and monitored. Staff worked with health professionals, supported people with food and drink, and had training to carry out their roles.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, offered choices and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people had access to activities and social opportunities. Some care plans needed more detail, and the home was working to involve people more in reviewing their care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- There were quality checks and a positive culture, but medicines audits had not always found problems and staff had not always followed the required weekly checking process. The manager took action during and after the inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but medicines were not always managed safely and leadership systems needed strengthening.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. Two inspectors visited without notice on 7 March and 16 March 2023. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed medicines being given, and checked care, staff and management records.
The inspectors found good care in three areas. People’s needs were met, staff were kind and knew people well, and there were activities and support to help people maintain relationships. There were enough staff, and the home worked with health professionals.
There were important safety problems with medicines. Records and stock levels did not always match, one controlled drug was recorded incorrectly, and medicated patches were not always moved as required. The home also had not always identified these problems through its checks. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with Safe and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement.
Kind relationships
People and relatives were happy with the home. Inspectors saw staff being polite, friendly and attentive, and found that staff knew people well.
“People told us the staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on each shift to meet people’s basic care needs. Recruitment checks and staff training were also in place.
“There were enough staff on each shift to ensure people's basic care needs were consistently met and people were supported in line with their care plans.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities inside and outside the home. Staff also supported people to maintain important family and community relationships.
“People were offered a range of activities and opportunities to socialise.” from the report
Health and food support
People’s healthcare needs were monitored and staff worked with other professionals. People had choices about meals and could ask for alternatives.
“People were supported to have enough food and drink that they enjoyed.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicine administration records and stock levels did not always match. One controlled drug was recorded incorrectly, which could have meant the wrong medicine was given.
“The administration and management of medicines was not always safe and we were not assured people always received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Medicines checks
seriousThe home’s medicines audits had not always found problems, and weekly stock and record checks were not always completed in line with its policy.
“Medicines audits had not always identified where improvements to medicines management were needed.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain enough current information about risks, moving and handling, or wounds. The manager addressed some record concerns during the inspection.
“However, information about risk management was not always detailed in people's care plans.” from the report
Fire drill training
needs fixingNot all staff had completed a fire drill, although staff with fire marshal training were available in the home.
“Although staff were always available in the home that had completed the fire marshal training, not all staff had completed a fire drill.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure medicine administration records always match the stock held?
- 02How are controlled drugs and medicated patches now checked to prevent recording or application errors?
- 03How often are medicines audits completed, and who reviews the results?
- 04Have all staff completed fire drill training, and how is this tracked?
- 05Have care plans been updated with current moving and handling, wound and other risk information?
This was the first unannounced inspection of the newly registered care home and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Montague House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 November 2021.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.