CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mount View House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and risks were assessed and reviewed. However, medicine records had gaps, some directions were unclear, and cleaning records were not consistently completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on people's needs and choices, and staff received training and supervision. People had access to health professionals, although systems for monitoring weight and one health passport needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices, develop communication skills and take part in daily activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and communication needs, and families were involved. Some people could not access the community as often as planned because there were not enough available drivers.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Leaders had systems to monitor the service and learn from incidents. However, staffing pressures meant a medication audit had been missed, and staff views about morale were mixed.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Mount View House is rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but staffing, medicines records and audits needed attention.
Inspectors visited on 4 and 6 January 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They looked at care records, medicines, the building and how support was provided.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care plans were personal and regularly reviewed. Staff supported choice, independence, activities and access to health care.
There were some shortfalls. Staffing pressures and regular agency use affected some community activities. Medicines records and some as-needed medicine directions were not always clear. Cleaning records and a medication audit were not consistently completed. The provider gave evidence that some issues were addressed after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People were supported with kindness, privacy and dignity. Staff understood individual needs and encouraged people to take part in their care.
“People received kind and supportive care. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Choice and independence
Care plans focused on what people could do and helped them build daily living skills. People were supported with decisions, activities and interests.
“People's independence was promoted, and staff encouraged people to participate in their care decisions.” from the report
Good partnership working
Visiting professionals said the home worked closely with other services and acted promptly to support people's health and quality of life.
“Communication is very good. They have always been quick to get back to me, and they are always happy for me to visit when I need to.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed incidents, identified patterns and changed staff handover arrangements. Inspectors saw a reduction in incidents after these changes.
“This identified the potential triggers for incidents involved staff handovers. Changes were made around the processes and frequency of changes in staff during a shift, and a significant reduction in incidents had been observed.” from the report
Community access and staffing
needs fixingStaffing shortages and the use of agency staff meant some people could not get out as often as set out in their care plans. The provider was recruiting and increasing the number of staff able to drive.
“I like to go out and do things I like, I don't like missing out. It happens all the time.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingMedicine records were not always accurate. There were gaps in signatures and administration times, and some as-needed medicines did not have clear directions. The provider supplied evidence of changes after the inspection.
“However, records were not always accurate. A staff signature list was not on file and signatures on Medication Administration Records (MAR) charts were not always legible.” from the report
Cleaning records
minorThe home appeared clean, but cleaning schedules had large gaps in their records. Inspectors recommended that records be completed consistently.
“Cleaning schedules were not consistently being maintained and large gaps in recording was noted, however the service appeared clean.” from the report
Missed medication audit
needs fixingA regular medication audit had not been completed because of staffing pressures. This meant the recording problems had not been identified through the home's own checks.
“Due to staffing pressures, the monthly medication audit had been omitted and therefore the issues we picked up on medications had not been identified.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff and agency staff are currently working here, and how will you make sure planned community activities are not missed?
- 02What changes have been made to medicine recording, as-needed medicine directions and regular medication audits since the inspection?
- 03Can we see recent cleaning records, and have the water damage and damaged doors in some en-suites been repaired?
- 04How do you now monitor people's weight and make sure health passports stay up to date?
- 05What is being done to improve staff morale and make sure agency staff know each person's needs?
This was a full inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, with the previous overall rating of Good from 2018 remaining unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 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.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home did not yet have a registered manager.
This was an announced inspection on 6 December 2017. Inspectors brought it forward after a complaint. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, medicines were managed safely, care plans were detailed, and people were supported to make choices and remain independent.
The home did not have a registered manager at the time. A new manager had submitted the required documents and was waiting for an interview. Inspectors also noted staffing challenges, limited access to the main building for two people, and concerns from relatives about evening activities, communication after incidents and behaviour support.
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked before giving medicines. Inspectors found no gaps or omissions in the medicines records they examined, and managers audited the system weekly.
“We looked at the medicines administration records (MAR) for three people and found they had been completed correctly with no gaps or omissions.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's communication methods, preferences, history, aims, routines and support needs. They were updated regularly so staff had current information.
“Plans of care were detailed and individual to each person.” from the report
Kind and calm staff
Inspectors saw staff respond calmly when one person became distressed. Staff supported people with dignity, choice and independence.
“We observed staff interacting with people who used the service and staff were kind and sympathetic.” from the report
Activities and communication
The home used different communication aids and supported people to take part in activities suited to their interests and abilities.
“People were able to join in activities suitable to their age, gender and ethnicity.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Managers carried out regular audits and recorded action plans. These covered areas including safeguarding, medicines, care plans, training and behaviour support.
“The manager and area manager conducted regular audits to look at ways of maintaining or improving the service.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. A new manager had applied and was waiting for an interview, so families should check the current position.
“The service did not have a registered manager.” from the report
Limited access to shared areas
needs fixingTwo people living in apartments did not always have access to the main building because of compatibility issues. The home was working with families, social services and other professionals on this.
“We did feel that two people who lived in the apartments had limited access to the main building because of compatibility issues.” from the report
Family communication
needs fixingA relative said they were not always told when an incident had happened. A professional also said end-of-month updates were not always sent consistently.
“I would like to be informed if an incident has occurred, this does not always happen” from the report
Evening stimulation
minorA relative was concerned that one person was isolated, not stimulated enough in the evening and going to bed early. The home was exploring ways to provide more evening activity.
“I am concerned that he is not stimulated enough in the evening and is going to bed really early, he is a little isolated, it's not ideal.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now completed CQC registration, and who is responsible for the home if they have not?
- 02How do you make sure people living in the apartments can access the main building and shared activities safely?
- 03How will you provide enough stimulating activities in the evening for people who need them?
- 04How are relatives told about incidents, and how consistently are end-of-month updates sent?
- 05What changes have been made to positive behaviour support interventions following the concerns raised by relatives?
This was an announced first rated inspection of the new service, covering all five key questions and the overall quality of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 January 2018 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 View House
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 November 2016.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Rochdale
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. 92 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.