CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mountview Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
The inspection took place without notice over two days. The inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, kind care, good support with food and healthcare, and activities that helped people stay socially connected.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in March 2019. Staffing numbers, management oversight and the quality of the service had improved. There was no registered manager at the time of this inspection, although an application had been made and the new manager was supported by the provider.
Improved staffing
Staffing numbers had increased and people, relatives and staff said the situation had improved. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs.
“We found improvements to the number of staff deployed in the service, and people and relatives feedback confirmed this.” from the report
Safe care
Risks such as falls and pressure sores were assessed and managed. Medicines were given safely, with staff training, checks and regular audits.
“People received safe care and were protected from the risk of harm and abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and treated them with dignity. Inspectors saw sensitive care and found that people's privacy and independence were respected.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who knew them well, and there was mutual regard between them.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Care plans considered people's preferences, history and needs. The home offered varied activities and supported people to maintain relationships and use local facilities.
“The service provided person centred care.” from the report
Open management
People and relatives felt able to raise concerns. Managers used feedback and complaints to make changes, including increasing staffing and activities.
“People and staff felt comfortable raising concerns about the quality of the service and were complimentary of the recent improvements made.” from the report
Manager not yet registered
minorThe home did not have a manager registered with the CQC when inspectors visited. An application had been received, and the manager had support from the regional manager during the change.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Previous call bell concerns
minorPeople had raised concerns about the call bell system. It was replaced during the inspection, and the provider later assured inspectors that the new system was working.
“People had expressed concerns over the call bell system.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's application to register with the CQC been completed, and who is responsible for the home while this is being dealt with?
- 02How many staff are usually on duty for each shift, and how often are agency staff used now?
- 03Is the replacement call bell system working reliably, and how are call response times checked?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05What further improvements from the 'Vision for 2020' have been completed?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the Safe and Well-led ratings improved from Requires Improvement, while the other three remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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, March 2019
Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care but staffing and risk management were not always safe.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with people living there, visitors, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, training, recruitment, policies and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated kindly and respectfully, involved in their care, supported to make choices and offered activities. Staff supported people to access healthcare, manage medicines and receive care based on their individual needs.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. People and staff said there were not always enough staff to respond promptly. Inspectors also found that some risk assessment instructions were not followed, nutritional information was inaccurate and infection control procedures were not always followed. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. This was the first inspection and there was no previous rating to compare it with.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors also saw staff reassuring people and providing comfort respectfully.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, interests and support needs. Staff knew the people they supported well.
“People's plans of care included information about their past lives, their spiritual needs and the hobbies and interests they enjoyed.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose how to spend their day and were supported to join activities such as quizzes, gardening, exercises and arts and crafts.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities of their choice.” from the report
Medicines management
Medicines were stored securely, records showed they were given regularly and staff competence was checked.
“People were provided with their medicines in a safe way.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The management team reviewed what went wrong and changed the falls recording process to improve the information captured.
“The manager ensured lessons were learned and improvements were made when things went wrong.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousPeople sometimes waited a long time for help. Inspectors found that there were not always enough staff available to support people promptly, although staffing was increased on the second inspection day.
“It was evident during our visit there were not always sufficient numbers of staff available to support people in a timely manner.” from the report
Risk instructions not followed
seriousA person assessed as needing a modified diet and thickened fluids was seen being given an ordinary meal. Their records also gave conflicting instructions about the required fluid thickness.
“One person had been assessed by the speech and language team and deemed to require thickened fluids and a fork mashable diet to reduce the risk of choking.” from the report
Nutrition records
seriousA person's nutritional assessment was not accurate, and a 7.7 kilogram weight loss over four days had not been reported to management. The person was referred to their GP after inspectors raised this.
“We found they had lost 7.7kg in a four-day period. This had not been reported to the management team.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingInspectors found a soiled continence pad in an uncovered waste bin. The pad had not been bagged or removed in line with the provider's policy.
“On day two of our visit a soiled continence pad was found in a person's waste paper basket.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingAlthough there were auditing systems, they had not led to timely action on staffing. They had also failed to identify inconsistent risk information in some records.
“Inconsistent information within people's documentation had not always been identified through the auditing process.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are now in place during the day and at night, and how do you make sure people do not wait too long for help?
- 02How do you check that each person's risk assessment is accurate and that staff follow the latest instructions?
- 03What changes have been made to prevent errors with modified diets and thickened fluids?
- 04How are people's weights and nutritional risks now monitored and reported to management?
- 05How do you make sure waste, including continence waste, is handled according to infection control procedures?
This was an unannounced first ratings inspection that looked at the premises and care provided across all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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 Mountview Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 2017.
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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.