CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Mountdale Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with safety, safeguarding, staffing and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8, 10 and 14 November 2023. Inspectors spoke with 9 people, 7 relatives, managers and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management information.
Inspectors found people were at risk of avoidable harm. Staff used unsafe moving and handling methods, some risks were not properly assessed, safeguarding concerns were not acted on, recruitment checks were incomplete and infection control was not consistently good. Staffing and activities were also not always enough to meet people's needs.
The home was rated Inadequate for Safe and Well-led, and Requires Improvement for Effective. Inspectors found weak leadership, poor oversight, missed learning from incidents and concerns, and failures to act on complaints and feedback. The home was previously rated Good in November 2017.
The overall Inadequate rating means the home is in special measures. The CQC will monitor progress and usually re-inspect within 6 months if it does not propose cancelling the provider's registration.
Medicines
The medicines records reviewed were in good order. Staff gave medicines at suitable times and treated people with dignity and respect.
“These showed each person received their medicines at the times they needed them, and records were kept in good order.” from the report
Food
People and relatives spoke positively about the meals. Inspectors found people were supported to eat and drink enough, although hydration monitoring still needed improvement.
“People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home worked with healthcare services when people needed support. Relatives said they were kept updated about care needs and health appointments.
“People were supported to access healthcare services and support as needed.” from the report
Visitors
People were able to receive visitors without restrictions during the inspection.
“People were able to receive visitors without restrictions in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousManagers did not reliably investigate allegations of abuse or report concerns to the local authority and the CQC. Staff said concerns about unexplained bruising had not led to action.
“The provider's safeguarding practices and procedures were not effective, and people were not safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Unsafe care and risk management
seriousInspectors saw four incidents of unsafe moving and handling. Some risks linked to catheters, diabetes and distressing behaviour were not properly assessed or recorded.
“Risks to people were not safely monitored and managed to support them to stay safe.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
seriousThe home did not complete all required checks before employing staff. Inspectors also found periods when no staff were in the communal lounge and too few staff to provide regular activities.
“The provider did not ensure all required recruitment checks were completed on staff.” from the report
Training and supervision
needs fixingSome staff practice was unsafe despite training. Induction, supervision and appraisals were not completed as required, and some important training was missing or out of date.
“The service did not always make sure staff had the skills, knowledge, and experience to deliver effective care and support.” from the report
Poor management oversight
seriousThe home lacked reliable systems to identify problems, respond to complaints, learn from incidents and improve care. Required statutory notifications were also not always sent to the CQC.
“The lack of effective oversight and governance of the service has resulted in several breaches of regulatory requirements.” from the report
- 01What immediate changes have you made to prevent unsafe moving and handling, and how are staff observations now checked?
- 02Have all safeguarding concerns, including unexplained injuries, been reported and investigated properly?
- 03Have all staff completed the required DBS, Adult First, reference and identity checks before working with residents?
- 04How are staffing levels being matched to people's needs, including cover for the communal lounge and social activities?
- 05What is in the action plan following the Warning Notices, and how will you show families that the changes are working?
This began as a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, was widened to include Effective, and the other key-question ratings were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 2024 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 21 January 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home used testing, screening, isolation, social distancing and personal protective equipment. They were also assured that admissions and visits were managed safely.
The home had adapted visiting areas and provided ways for people to keep in touch with relatives online. Inspectors also noted that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas.
Testing and screening
The home followed whole-home testing guidance, including rapid testing and weekly staff testing. People also had regular health screening to help identify symptoms early.
“The registered manager was following the government's guidance on whole home testing for people and staff.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visiting areas were adapted for social distancing and screens and personal protective equipment were provided for visitors.
“Visiting areas had been adapted to allow for social distancing, the use of screens and personal protective equipment (PPE) was provided for visitors.” from the report
Keeping people connected
When relatives could not visit, people could use the internet and video calls to stay in touch.
“People were able to connect to the internet and there were facilities for people to video call and keep in touch with their friends and relatives when unable to visit.” from the report
Managing isolation and space
People could isolate when needed, and communal areas had enough space to support social distancing.
“People were supported to isolate when required and the environment was spacious to allow for social distancing in communal areas.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the home to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain exactly what needed developing.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control approach did inspectors suggest you develop further?
- 02How often are residents and staff tested now, and how are symptoms monitored?
- 03How are visits arranged now, including screens, social distancing and personal protective equipment?
- 04What happens if a resident needs to isolate, and how is contact with relatives maintained?
- 05How do you safely admit new residents and manage infection risks during admission?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices; it did not provide a full service rating or assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 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 Mountdale Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- January 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 May 2013.
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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.