CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Mount
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, the premises were safe, there were enough staff and medicines were managed safely. Staff were trained to recognise and report abuse.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's choices and mental capacity were assessed appropriately, with best-interest decisions made where needed. Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with food, healthcare and communication.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in their care and encouraged to be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's choices and were reviewed with people, relatives and advocates. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, stable staff team and effective quality checks. Feedback, incidents, audits and complaints were used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, May 2020
The Mount rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with the home larger than recommended by best practice guidance.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection over three visits in March 2020. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, checked the premises and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was providing residential personal care to 18 people, with space for up to 19. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by enough staff and given their medicines safely. Staff understood people's needs and supported healthy eating, healthcare, communication and independence.
People were treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. The home had effective systems for checking quality, learning from incidents and responding to complaints.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating for each area as at the previous inspection, published on 4 August 2017.
Personalised support
Care focused on people's choices, ambitions and independence. Staff helped some people move towards more independent living in the on-site bungalows.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and medicines were stored, administered and checked safely.
“Medicines were managed safely in line with national best practice and guidance.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and used warm, friendly interactions. They asked permission before providing support and encouraged people to make daily choices.
“People were treated kindly by staff and we observed many positive interactions.” from the report
Good communication support
Staff adapted information and communication to people's needs. This included pictorial signs, plain English and staff learning sign language.
“Staff had learned sign language in their own time and had been taught by a person to ensure they could communicate fully with them.” from the report
Strong management oversight
The manager used meetings, feedback, audits and investigations to monitor the service and identify improvements.
“The quality and assurance systems in place were effective and allowed the registered manager to monitor and improve the quality of care provided to people.” from the report
Larger than recommended
minorThe home was larger than recommended by best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors still rated it Good because they found person-centred care and positive outcomes for people.
“The service is larger than recommended by best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How does the size of the home affect the daily experience of residents?
- 02How would you support my relative to develop skills and become more independent?
- 03How would you adapt communication if my relative could not communicate easily?
- 04How are medicines checked and how would you involve my relative in decisions about their medicines?
- 05How would you support my relative to keep relationships, attend activities and access the local community?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with good leadership and activities.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 June 2017. One inspector spoke with nine people living at the home, staff and managers. They also observed care, checked the building, records, medicines, staffing, training, meals and management systems.
People said they felt safe and that staff were kind and caring. Inspectors found enough staff, clear risk assessments, safe medicines practice, suitable training and good infection control. People were supported with healthcare, food choices, communication and decisions about their care.
Care plans were personalised and people were involved in choosing activities and daily routines. The home offered many social, leisure, education and independence activities. People knew how to complain, and the report said concerns had been dealt with promptly.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This meant the service remained Good since the previous comprehensive inspection on 6 and 7 October 2014.
Safe staffing
Staffing was adjusted according to people's needs. Inspectors found enough staff to provide personal care and support social and leisure activities without rushing.
“There are always enough of us to go out or do different activities with residents.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's routines, choices and support needs. People were involved in agreeing and reviewing their care.
“Care plans were personalised and easily accessible to people.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Staff built warm relationships and supported privacy, dignity, family contact and personal, cultural and spiritual needs.
“We saw staff shared warm and friendly relationships with people.” from the report
Activities and independence
People took part in activities inside and outside the home, including education, volunteering, holidays and daily living tasks.
“People said they received good care that met their needs and wishes, provided meaningful activities and helped them with independence.” from the report
Open management
People and staff were encouraged to share their views through meetings, surveys and informal discussions. Audits were regular and issues were acted on promptly.
“The registered manager also had an open door policy where unless he had a specific meeting or task people could talk to him at any time.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's individual risks and support needs?
- 02How would you support my relative's communication needs and involvement in decisions about their care?
- 03What activities, education, volunteering or independence opportunities would be available to my relative?
- 04How do you adjust staffing when people's needs change?
- 05How are care plans reviewed with residents and their relatives where appropriate?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home; the previous comprehensive inspection was on 6 and 7 October 2014. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 August 2017 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 The Mount
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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 £1,300 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.