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
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, regular risk and equipment checks, suitable infection control and generally well-managed medicines. Some information was missing from medicines records and protocols, but this was corrected straight away.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture, active quality checks and good working relationships with health and social care professionals. A few relatives and professionals raised communication issues, which the manager said they would address.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Mountview is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with minor medicines record and communication issues.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 26 and 29 June 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience met everyone living at the home, spoke with staff, relatives and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home supports up to 10 adults with learning disabilities or other complex needs. Nine people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines management, clean premises, infection control measures and appropriate risk assessments. A recent safeguarding concern involving two staff members had been dealt with appropriately and was still being investigated by the relevant authorities.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Caring, Effective and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward. The overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection, published in 2019.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, have control and remain as independent as possible. They could take part in activities and pursue interests in the local community.
“The model of care and setting maximised people's choice, control and independence.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans described people's preferences and how to support them when distressed. Inspectors found care that respected people's dignity, privacy and human rights.
“People received care which was person centred and promoted their dignity, privacy and human rights.” from the report
Staffing and safety
There were enough staff, including one-to-one support where needed. Recruitment checks, training and safeguarding systems were in place.
“There were enough staff to support people. People who required one to one support received this in line with their care and support needs.” from the report
Positive culture
Inspectors found that people appeared relaxed and could approach staff for support. Leaders promoted an open and person-centred culture.
“There was a positive culture within the home which was person-centred and empowered people.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome information was missing from medicines administration records and protocols. The home corrected this immediately and planned to review its medicines checks.
“There was some missing information from medicines administration records and protocols, but this was addressed straight away.” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorMost relatives said communication was good, but a few said staff had not returned calls. The manager was aware and said this would be looked into.
“There were a couple of comments about staff not getting back to relatives when they had called and left a message.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines administration records and protocols since the inspection?
- 02How will you make sure relatives receive a reply when they leave a message?
- 03What was learned from the recent safeguarding concern involving two staff members?
- 04Which ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection?
- 05How will you keep families involved in care reviews and make sure they receive paperwork promptly?
This was a focused inspection prompted by recent concerns and assessed Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 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, July 2019
Mountview was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with well-led management improved from Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 17 and 20 June 2019. One inspector spent time with eight of the nine people, spoke with managers and support workers, contacted two family members, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staff understood people's needs, and people were treated with kindness, dignity and patience.
Some care plans needed more detail about how people communicated and expressed their emotions. Risk assessments did not always include checks that were relevant to the particular risk. The home had recognised these issues and was reviewing care plans. The previous overall rating was also Good, while Well-led had improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff had caring relationships with people and treated them with dignity, patience and respect.
“Staff were incredibly patient and kind with people whose behaviour and communication could, at times, be repetitive.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Inspectors also found enough staff to meet people's needs, with a stable staff team and no agency staff used.
“Medicines were stored, administered and recorded in a safe way.” from the report
Good support for health and choice
People had access to healthcare professionals and were supported with their nutritional needs. They were also helped to make choices and were not unduly restricted.
“People were not unduly restricted and were supported to make decisions wherever possible.” from the report
Community life and activities
People were supported to follow their interests, maintain relationships and take part in local community activities.
“People were well known within the local community and attended the local pub and community events.” from the report
Improved management
Management had improved since the previous inspection. Audits and action plans were used to identify and monitor improvements.
“The registered manager and deputy manager understood the requirement to submit notifications of certain incidents to the Commission and made sure this was completed.” from the report
Care plans needed more communication detail
needs fixingNot all care plans explained clearly how people communicated or expressed their emotions. Managers had recognised this and prioritised reviewing the plans.
“Others would benefit from including detail on how people communicate and express their emotions.” from the report
Some risk assessment checks were not relevant
minorRisk assessments included checks about staff training and equipment, but these checks were not always relevant to the specific risk. This was discussed with the registered manager.
“Risk assessments included the need for staff training and equipment checks however this wasn't always relevant to the risk.” from the report
Recruitment involvement was not recorded
minorPeople were involved in staff recruitment, but this involvement was not documented.
“People were involved in recruitment however this was not documented.” from the report
The home was larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to 10 people and nine people were living there. Inspectors noted that this was larger than current best practice guidance, although the building fitted into the local residential area.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans so they explain each person's communication and emotional signals?
- 02How do you make sure risk assessments contain checks that are relevant to each person's particular risks?
- 03How are people involved in recruiting staff, and how is that involvement recorded?
- 04How do you support people to raise a complaint or concern if they are unhappy?
- 05How do you ensure people can continue their community activities, relationships and personal interests?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good and Well-led improved from Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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 Mountview
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 December 2010.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £950 to £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.