CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mount Pleasant Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, recruitment checks were completed and infection control systems had improved.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Governance and audit systems had improved, but inspectors said the home needed a longer-term record showing that improvements and good practice were sustained.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good after major improvements; Safe was Good, but Well-led Requires Improvement and the home has only recently left Special Measures.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection carried out on 17, 22, 23 and 29 March 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked medicines, care records, audits, incidents, maintenance and staff files.
Inspectors found major improvements since the previous inspection. The home was clean, staffing levels supported cleanliness, risks were reviewed, medicines were managed safely and infection control had improved. People said staff were kind, responsive and listened to them.
Safe was rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the home needed to embed its audit systems and show a longer record of sustained improvement. The overall rating became Good, but the other three areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward.
Safer environment
The home had undergone major refurbishment. Inspectors found it visibly clean, with enough housekeeping cover and safety checks in place.
“All areas of the service were visibly clean and enough housekeeping cover was now in place.” from the report
Medicines improved
Records for medicines given when needed were clear and consistent. Prescribed creams were stored securely and staff followed safe medicines procedures.
“The management and administration of medicines had improved and was robust with clear procedures in place.” from the report
Kind and responsive staff
People told inspectors they felt cared for and listened to. They described staff as kind and responsive.
“People who used the service told us they felt well cared for and listened too.” from the report
People involved
The home held meetings and used surveys and conversations to seek the views of people and relatives.
“The service sought feedback and encouraged involvement in several ways including meetings, surveys and regular conversations with people and their relatives.” from the report
Leadership needs to prove improvements will last
needs fixingWell-led was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found significant progress, but said audit systems needed to become established and the home needed a longer record of sustained improvement.
“To improve the rating to 'good' would require the embedding of audit systems and a longer-term track record of sustained improvement and good practice.” from the report
- 01How will you show that the improved audit and governance systems continue to work over time?
- 02What checks are now used to make sure medicines given when needed are recorded correctly?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient to keep the home clean?
- 04How are relatives involved through meetings, surveys and regular conversations?
- 05What were the ratings and any concerns from the previous inspection in the Effective, Caring and Responsive areas?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 May 2022 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, October 2021
Overall Inadequate and in special measures; inspectors found unsafe medicines, infection control and risk management, with poor oversight of the home.
This was a focused inspection on 05 and 07 May 2021. Inspectors checked whether the home had followed its improvement plan and met legal requirements for Safe and Well-led care. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Inadequate for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found continued problems with medicines, prescribed creams, infection control, cleaning, locked doors, harmful products and incomplete risk assessments. Care plans and records were not always accurate or person-centred.
The provider had been in breach of regulations since June 2015, and this was the eighth inspection in a row rated no higher than Requires Improvement. Some immediate actions were taken during or after the inspection, but the inspectors found that improvements had not been sufficient or sustained.
The home remains in special measures. This means the CQC will keep it under review and normally re-inspect within six months. If there is still an Inadequate rating, the CQC may begin action to prevent the provider from operating the home.
Safeguarding
People were protected from abuse. Staff had training and knew how to report concerns.
“People were protected from abuse by staff who had received training and had access to appropriate policies and guidance.” from the report
Recruitment
The recruitment checks reviewed by inspectors were appropriate and aimed to ensure suitable staff were employed.
“Recruitment processes were safe. Appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure that only suitable people were employed.” from the report
Trained medicines staff
People received their regular medicines from trained staff, although inspectors found problems with some medicines records and risk assessments.
“People received their regular medication from appropriately trained staff.” from the report
Professional working
The home worked with healthcare professionals, and professionals said staff followed their recommendations.
“Healthcare professionals told us that their recommendations to staff about how to support a person were followed.” from the report
Approachable management
Inspectors found the management team approachable and responsive when concerns were raised. Some relatives also spoke positively about their relationships with the home.
“The registered manager and nominated individual were approachable and responsive to feedback throughout the inspection.” from the report
Medicines and creams
seriousRecords and risk assessments for as-required medicines and prescribed creams were incomplete. Body maps were not consistently signed, dated or reviewed.
“Risks relating to safe storage and administration of medicines were not fully assessed and managed.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
seriousSome areas, bathrooms and equipment were unclean. Used and unused protective equipment was not always handled or stored safely.
“Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate that risks associated with infection control and the environment were safely managed.” from the report
Environmental risks
seriousCleaning chemicals were accessible, and doors to the laundry room and outside were left unlocked. Inspectors also found an unsafe radiator and missing testing records.
“Harmful products such as bleach were not stored safely and were left in communal areas.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments varied in quality and were not always reviewed. Some records did not show clearly whether people had received the care they needed.
“Records in relation to people's care did not always contain adequate information and were not always completed properly.” from the report
Repeated management failures
seriousThe provider's audits and action plan had not found or fixed repeated problems. The home had been rated no higher than Requires Improvement at eight consecutive inspections.
“There had not been sufficient and sustained improvements in the oversight of the safety and quality of the service being provided for people.” from the report
- 01What has changed since this inspection to make medicines and prescribed creams safer, and how are body maps and as-required medicine records now checked?
- 02How are cleaning standards, protective equipment storage and disposal, and bathroom hygiene monitored each day?
- 03How are bleach and other harmful products kept locked away, and how are external and laundry-room doors kept secure?
- 04What evidence can you show that care plans and risk assessments are now reviewed and written in a person-centred way?
- 05What actions have been completed since the home was placed in special measures, and what is still outstanding?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 2021 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 Mount Pleasant Residential Home
10 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Mount Pleasant Residential Home →
- October 2021Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Mount Pleasant Residential Home →
- January 2021Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.