CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Montfort Fields
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing was based on people's needs, and medicines were administered safely. The home was clean and staff understood how to respond to safety concerns.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and experience, and people received support with food, drinks and healthcare. Inspectors found that mental capacity and liberty safeguards were used in the least restrictive way.
- Caring?
- Good
- People appeared relaxed with staff who knew their communication styles and preferences. Staff promoted dignity, privacy, independence and day-to-day choice.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's histories, preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities they enjoyed, relationships, complaints and changes in their care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider checked care quality, listened to feedback and supported teamwork. Relatives and staff described communication and leadership positively.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with further end-of-life planning still being developed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 January 2019. Two inspectors observed care, spoke with relatives, the manager and staff, and reviewed care, medicines and management records.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and/or autism. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, supported to make choices, and helped to enjoy activities and relationships that mattered to them.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 21 September 2016.
Strong relationships
People had close, trusting relationships with staff who knew them well. Relatives were very positive about the care.
“People had developed strong bonds with staff who knew them well.” from the report
Personal choice
People were supported to make day-to-day choices and communicate their wishes in their preferred ways. Staff promoted independence and dignity.
“People made many of their own day to day choices and decisions.” from the report
Safe care
Inspectors found suitable staffing, risk management, infection control and medicines procedures. The home was clean and well maintained.
“People were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were helped to take part in activities they enjoyed and keep in contact with important people.
“People were supported to do things they enjoyed. This included hydrotherapy sessions, carriage riding and meeting up with friends for lunch.” from the report
Good leadership
The manager and provider monitored quality, acted on suggestions and worked with health and social care professionals.
“The registered manager and provider checked the quality of the care given.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorPeople's wishes were recorded, but the manager said further work with other agencies was planned to develop end-of-life care.
“The registered manager told us they were committed to meeting people's preferences at the end of their lives and was planning further work with other agencies to realise this.” from the report
- 01What further work with other agencies has been completed to develop end-of-life care?
- 02How are people's preferred communication methods used in everyday care and when important decisions are made?
- 03How are staffing levels adjusted when people's needs or preferred activities change?
- 04How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and raising suggestions or concerns?
- 05How do staff check that medicines continue to be given as prescribed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the care home, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2019 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 7 July 2016. One inspector observed the home, spoke with two relatives, three staff and the registered manager, and reviewed care records, complaints information, recruitment checks and the provider’s monitoring records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people appeared relaxed, staff understood their health needs and risks, and medicines were checked regularly.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. People were supported to make choices about their care, food, routines and activities. Relatives said staff understood their family members and kept them informed.
The home provided accommodation for up to five people, and all five places were occupied at the inspection. A registered manager was in post. The report records no complaints from relatives and no breaches of regulations.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people’s health conditions, communication methods, preferences and usual behaviour. This helped them notice when someone might not be well.
“Staff we spoke with had known people living at the service for a number of years and told us they understood the people they supported well” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond warmly to people and involve them in conversations about their care. People were supported in ways that respected their individual routines and preferences.
“We saw people being treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Choices and interests
People were supported to choose food, routines and activities. Staff observed people’s reactions and used this to understand what they enjoyed.
“People were involved in influencing how their care was planned and the activities they pursued.” from the report
Regular checks and support
The registered manager carried out regular checks, while staff received supervision, training and guidance. The provider also supported the registered manager’s development.
“The registered manager undertook a number of monthly checks to ensure people received quality care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative’s care needs if they changed?
- 02How do you make sure staff understand my relative’s health risks and the signs that something may be wrong?
- 03How are medicines checked, and how would you tell us about any medicines error?
- 04How would my relative be supported to communicate choices and give or refuse consent?
- 05How do you involve families in reviews, activities and decisions about longer-term care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and reviews of three care records and other records. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 2016 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 Montfort Fields
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 2011.
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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.