CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mountain Ash
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using infection-control measures safely, including PPE, testing, social distancing, hygiene and visitor arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practices at Mountain Ash.
The inspection took place on 22 October 2020. It was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control. They found good arrangements for visitors, hand washing, personal protective equipment, social distancing and testing.
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends. Staff also helped people who were self-isolating and used easy-read signs and reassurance to help people understand infection-control measures.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of the service, so it does not provide ratings for the other areas of care.
Managed visits
The home used a booking system to stagger visits and support social distancing. Visitors had a dedicated area for hand washing and safe use of PPE.
“There was a visitor booking system to manage staggered visits and social distancing.” from the report
Contact with family
People were supported to stay in contact with friends and family through social media. People self-isolating received extra social contact and activities in their rooms.
“People were enabled to maintain contact with friends and family through various social media platforms.” from the report
Individual planning
The home had individual infection-control risk assessments, including plans to support people with social distancing when going out.
“People had individual risk assessments in relation to infection control and management, this included support to maintain social distancing when going out.” from the report
Clear communication
Easy-read and pictorial signs explained infection-control measures. Staff also used reassurance and positive interactions to help people adjust to wearing PPE.
“There were easy-read and pictorial signs around the home promoting use of face masks, social distancing and limited staff numbers in rooms.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the visitor booking and social-distancing arrangements changed since the inspection?
- 02How do you support people who need to self-isolate now?
- 03How do you make sure PPE is used safely and comfortably by both staff and residents?
- 04How often are individual infection-control risk assessments reviewed?
- 05How are residents and staff currently tested for infections?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 2020 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, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some facilities needing attention.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 11 June 2019. Two inspectors observed care, spoke with six staff, checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and safety documents, and received feedback from three relatives after the visit.
The inspectors found that people were safe and supported by staff who understood their complex needs. Medicines were managed safely. People were treated with kindness and respect, involved in daily choices, and supported to keep relationships, interests and community activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had the same Good overall rating at the previous inspection, published on 15 December 2016. Some facilities were temporarily unavailable or needed improvement, but the report says repairs to the pool and washing machine were completed after the inspection.
Personalised communication
Staff recorded how people communicated and used individual communication aids. This helped people express choices and take part in decisions.
“People's needs and choices were well documented and understood by staff.” from the report
Safe medicines support
The home had systems for ordering, storing, giving and disposing of medicines. Staff had specialist training for medicines linked to diabetes and epilepsy.
“Medicine procedures and systems were robust with staff receiving specialised medicines training to enable them to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond warmly to people and understand their individual needs, including when people could not speak.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to enjoy hobbies, go out, attend events and keep in touch with family and friends.
“People had opportunity to access the wider community as hobbies and activity choices were supported.” from the report
Open leadership
The manager and staff promoted an inclusive culture and carried out regular audits and checks to monitor care and safety.
“There was an open culture which was inclusive and valued people and their individuality.” from the report
Kitchen space
minorThe kitchen was too small for more than one wheelchair user to access at a time. A larger kitchen was planned, with a stated completion date of March 2020.
“The kitchen area was not large enough for more than one person in a wheelchair to access at a time.” from the report
Hydrotherapy pool temporarily unavailable
minorThe pool was out of action during the inspection, although it was an important activity for many people. The report later confirmed that repairs had been completed.
“There was also a hydrotherapy pool, however, this was currently out of action.” from the report
Building larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for ten people and all ten places were in use. The report noted that this was larger than current best practice guidance, although the building fitted into its residential setting.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01Has the kitchen refurbishment been completed, and can more than one wheelchair user now take part in meal preparation?
- 02Is the hydrotherapy pool currently working, and how often can residents use it?
- 03How are staffing levels adjusted when several people need one-to-one or two-to-one support at the same time?
- 04How will staff support my relative to communicate choices and decisions about daily care?
- 05How are families involved when care plans or health needs change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, staff discussions, records checks and relative feedback. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 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.
Every inspection of Mountain Ash
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 March 2014.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.