CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mountview
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received medicines safely and risks to their safety and wellbeing were assessed and managed. Inspectors also found enough staff and improved recruitment and infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had suitable training, supervision and support. People were supported with food, healthcare, mental capacity decisions and their individual health needs.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- Staff treated people kindly and respected their privacy and dignity. However, some people were not supported to make their own drinks or snacks when they wanted, which limited their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and regularly updated. People were supported with meaningful activities, outings, communication, complaints and end of life choices.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had improved its systems for checking quality, managing risks and learning from incidents and complaints. People, relatives and staff were involved through meetings and feedback.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective and responsive care, but caring was Requires Improvement because independence was limited.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 July 2022. Inspectors spoke with four people, three relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found safe medicines, enough staff, suitable care records, meaningful activities and improved management systems.
Caring was rated Requires Improvement. People were treated kindly and with dignity, but some could not make their own drinks or snacks when they wanted. The home said it reintroduced a system for this after the inspection.
The overall rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in March 2021. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations previously breached, although further improvement was still needed in supporting independence.
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, needs, preferences and interests. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were comprehensive and contained people's life history such as details about their early life, family members, hobbies and interests.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People took part in activities that mattered to them, including gardening, feeding birds, karaoke and outings.
“People were supported to undertake activities which were meaningful to them.” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors saw that staff treated people respectfully and supported privacy and dignity.
“Yes I am treated with respect and dignity. Staff are kind and caring.” from the report
Improved oversight
The provider had introduced an action plan and regular audits covering medicines, care plans, safety, health and activities.
“We saw evidence the provider had improved their systems for monitoring and improving quality and these were mostly effective.” from the report
Limited independence with drinks
needs fixingSome people could not make their own drinks or snacks when they wanted and were not allowed in the kitchen. The provider said it reintroduced a system for people to make their own drinks after the inspection.
“Two people told us making their own drinks was not allowed, and they were not allowed in the kitchen.” from the report
- 01How can residents now make their own drinks and snacks, and are they able to use the kitchen?
- 02How will you support my relative to remain as independent as possible in daily life?
- 03How will my relative's care plan reflect their mental health needs, preferences and interests?
- 04What meaningful activities and outings would be available for my relative?
- 05How will you check that the improvements from the last inspection are being maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, care and accommodation, records, staff and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 July 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, May 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found good healthcare support but unsafe medicines practices, poor activities and failures to protect dignity.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 30 March 2021. Inspectors spoke with four people, six relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all Requires Improvement. Effective was rated Good. Inspectors found concerns about medicines, infection control, recruitment checks, mealtimes, dignity and meaningful activities.
The home had systems for healthcare support, nutrition, risk assessments and mental capacity decisions. However, some systems were not being followed well enough to keep people safe or provide consistently person-centred care. The previous overall rating was Good, so the overall position had worsened.
Healthcare support
People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and appropriate referrals were made when needed.
“People were supported to access healthcare professionals when needed and staff understood when referrals should be made.” from the report
Food and drink
The home provided regular meals, drinks and snacks, and monitored people's nutritional needs.
“People's nutritional and hydration needs were met. People received a balanced diet and drinks and snacks at regular intervals throughout the day.” from the report
Reviewed risk assessments
Risk assessments covered different aspects of people's care and were regularly updated as needs changed.
“Individual risk assessments had been implemented for all aspects of people's care and were regularly reviewed to reflect people's changing needs.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousSome medicines did not have suitable care plans or guidance. Staff did not always seek pharmacy advice before giving medicines covertly, which increased the risk of harm.
“Medicines were not always managed safely. We found instances where staff did not seek advice to ensure that medicines were administered in the safest way.” from the report
Dignity and mealtimes
seriousInspectors saw people treated in a task-focused way, with limited choices and poor interaction during meals. Some staff language and actions did not protect people's dignity.
“People were not always treated in a person-centred way and with respect. This was a breach of Regulation 10 of the Health and Social care act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Meaningful activities
needs fixingPlanned activities did not take place on the inspection day. Some people spent long periods alone or in communal areas with little interaction or therapeutic support.
“People were not supported to undertake activities that were meaningful to them.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingVisitors were not consistently screened for COVID-19, and a used test kit was left exposed in reception. The home did not always follow its own infection control procedures.
“However, on arrival to the service the inspection teams COVID-19 status was not obtained nor were their temperatures taken, and therefore staff failed to follow their own COVID-19 procedures when permitting visitors into the home.” from the report
Management checks
seriousAudits did not identify problems with medicines, recruitment, risks, dignity and activities. This meant the provider's systems were not reliably improving care or reducing risks.
“Failure to effectively implement systems and processes to monitor and improve the quality of the service and to monitor and mitigate risks was a breach of Regulation 17 (good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine care plans, covert medicines advice and PRN guidance since the inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure people are treated with dignity and offered choices during meals and personal care?
- 03What meaningful individual and group activities are now available for people with mental health needs?
- 04How are visitors screened for infection risks, and how do you check that staff follow the home's infection procedures?
- 05What action has been taken to improve audits, incident learning and staff recruitment checks?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures; the previous Good ratings were reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 May 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 Mountview
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 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 14 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hillingdon
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 £1,320 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.