CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mundania
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, risk assessment, staffing, medicines and infection control arrangements. Records were described as comprehensive, accurate and up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices, diets and healthcare were assessed and supported. Staff had induction, training and job shadowing, and the home was found to be working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Relatives and people were involved in care planning, and equality, diversity and religious needs were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication needs and daily activities. People could maintain relationships, follow interests and raise concerns with the manager or staff.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible management, good staff communication and a person-centred culture. However, one incident had not been notified to CQC as legally required.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but one incident was not reported to CQC as required.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 January 2024. Inspectors reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines and quality checks. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good care records and a clean environment. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and their choices and communication needs were supported.
The inspection was prompted partly by an incident after which a person died. CQC said the circumstances of that incident were not examined during this inspection because further investigation was continuing. Inspectors found that one other incident had not been notified to CQC as legally required, although the notification was submitted after the inspection.
Enough staff
Staff numbers and skills matched people's needs. This supported planned activities and appointments.
“The service had enough care workers to support all people could take part in their scheduled daily activities and attend appointments as required.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people being treated with kindness, dignity and respect. The home also supported people's equality, diversity and religious needs.
“People's privacy, dignity and independence was respected and promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, communication needs and how they wanted to spend their time. The home used pictures and communication books where helpful.
“Support plans had pictures throughout to aid people's understanding of the information documented.” from the report
Positive culture
Management was visible and staff said they felt supported and able to raise concerns. Inspectors found good communication among staff.
“The service promoted a person-centred positive culture. There was good communication amongst all staff, which created positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Late incident notification
needs fixingThe home did not notify CQC about one incident when it was legally required to do so. It submitted the notification after the inspection.
“The provider had failed to notify CQC of 1 incident that occurred at the service after the last inspection, of which they have a legal requirement to do so.” from the report
- 01What steps have been taken to make sure every incident that must be reported is notified to CQC promptly?
- 02What is the current position of CQC's further investigation into the incident following which a person died?
- 03How will people be kept safe while maintenance work is carried out in the rooms that need extensive work?
- 04How will you support my relative's particular communication needs, cultural or religious preferences and daily activities?
- 05How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas, but it did not examine the circumstances of the incident following which a person died because CQC's further investigation was continuing. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but medicines competency checks were not always completed annually.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. It was unannounced and took place on 9 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and a professional, and checked care, recruitment, training and management records.
The home supported four people with learning disabilities, although it could support up to five. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, clear risk assessments, safe medicines records, good support with health and food, and a clean home.
People were treated with dignity and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities. Care plans were detailed and communication needs were understood. Relatives and staff gave positive feedback.
All five areas were rated Good. The main shortfall was that staff had medicines training, but their practical medicines competency was not checked every year. The report recommended reviewing best practice on how often these checks should take place.
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found clear risk assessments and enough suitably vetted staff to support people safely.
“The provider had identified and appropriately mitigated risks to people's health and safety.” from the report
Respect and dignity
People were treated respectfully and supported with privacy, cultural needs and independence.
“People's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted and people were encouraged to be as independent as they wanted to be.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication methods. Staff supported people to take part in activities they chose.
“People's care was planned to ensure their individual needs and preferences were met.” from the report
Good communication
The home used easy-read information and detailed communication plans, including guidance on gestures, Makaton and verbal communication.
“The provider met people's communication needs and met the requirements of the AIS.” from the report
Management oversight
The provider used audits, monthly management reports, surveys and residents' meetings to monitor and improve the service.
“The provider monitored the quality of the service to improve the care provided.” from the report
Medicines competency checks
needs fixingStaff received annual medicines training, but their practical competency was only checked during induction or when a problem had been identified. Inspectors recommended reviewing best practice on the frequency of these checks.
“staff were not receiving annual medicines competency assessments.” from the report
- 01How often are staff now given practical medicines competency assessments?
- 02How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines after their initial assessment?
- 03How will you review and update my relative's care plan as their needs or preferences change?
- 04How will my relative be supported to choose activities and develop or maintain independence?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in residents' meetings, care reviews and feedback about the service?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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.
Every inspection of Mundania
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2019.
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 Southwark
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 £1,210 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.