We carried out an unannounced inspection of McAuley Mount Residential Care Home on 21 and 22 August 2018.

McAuley Mount Residential Home is a 'care home.' People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. McAuley Mount is located on the outskirts of Burnley. It is a two-storey purpose built care home set in its own grounds. The service is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 26 people. The accommodation includes apartments, single en-suite bedrooms and single rooms. The communal rooms include a sun room, dining room, conservatory/lounge and a chapel. A passenger lift provides access to the first-floor accommodation. The grounds are accessible to people using the service. There is car parking available next to the service. The philosophy of care is underpinned by the Roman Catholic faith. The service specialises in providing personal care and accommodation for older people.

At the time of our inspection there were 23 people accommodated at the service.

The service was managed by a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was supported in the day to day running of the service by a deputy manager.

At the last inspection on 12, 13, 14 July 2017 we found that there no breaches of the regulations of the health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities.) Regulations 2014. However, we found there were some matters needing improvement and the service was rated as Requires Improvement. We found there was some discontentment about aspects of management, morale and teamwork. We found the assessment process needed to improve to make sure people’s needs were more effectively identified and care plans adopted a more person-centred approach. We also found improvements were needed in the management of complaints and processes for planning and developing the service.

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the provider was meeting all regulations reviewed. At the last inspection the service was rated as overall "Requires improvement." At this inspection the rating had improved to overall "good."

People who lived at the home and their relatives told us they were happy with staffing levels. They felt that staff were there to assist them when they required support.

Records showed that staff had been recruited safely and had received an effective induction, appropriate training, supervision and appraisal.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and were aware how to protect people from abuse or the risk of abuse.

People told us staff were kind and compassionate and respected their right to privacy, dignity and independence. People had access to advocacy services if needed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, the service had taken appropriate action in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s needs had been assessed and risk assessments had been undertaken. Person centred care plans were in place.

People and their families were involved in the planning and review of their care.

Changes in people’s health were identified and appropriate health professionals were contacted. People had sufficient amounts to eat and drink and their nutritional and hydration needs were well met.

People's religious needs were effectively met. They were able to spent time in the chapel attending mass and prayers.

People were supported to take part in activities and events.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of McAuley Mount Residential Care Home on 12, 13 and 14 July 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.

McAuley Mount Residential Care Home is located on the outskirts of Burnley, it is a two-storey purpose built care home set in its own grounds. The service is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 26 people. The accommodation includes apartments, single en-suite bedrooms and single rooms without en-suite facilities. The communal rooms include a sun room, dining room, conservatory/lounge and a chapel. A passenger lift provides access to the first floor accommodation. The grounds are accessible to people using the service. There is car parking available next to the service. The philosophy of care at is underpinned by the Roman Catholic faith. The service specialises in providing personal care and accommodation for older people.

At the time of the inspection there were 26 people accommodated at the service.

The service was managed by a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection on 22 and 23 October 2014 we found the service was meeting all the standards assessed and the service was rated Good. During this inspection we found there were no breaches of the regulations of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. However we found there were some matters requiring improvement.

We found there were management and leadership arrangements in place to support the day to day running of the service. However comments from staff indicated there was discontentment about aspects of management

People made positive comments about the caring attitude of staff. During the inspection we observed staff interacting with people in a kind, pleasant and friendly manner and being respectful of people's choices and opinions.

There were some good processes in place to manage and store people’s medicines safely. We found some improvements were needed and most of these were put right during the inspection.

People told us they felt safe at the service. Staff were aware of the signs and indicators of abuse and they knew what to do if they had any concerns about people’s wellbeing and safety.

Arrangements were in place to ensure staff were properly checked before working at the service. There were enough staff available to provide care and support. There were systems in place to ensure all staff received regular training and supervision.

Processes were in place to assess and plan for people’s needs before they moved into the service. But we found the assessment process needed to improve to make sure people’s needs were more effectively identified.

People had individual care plans and ‘care passports’ however we found progress was needed to ensure the design and content of the plans promoted a person centred approach.

People were supported with their healthcare needs and received appropriate medical attention. Changes in people’s health and well-being were monitored and responded to.

People were happy with the variety and quality of the meals provided. We found various choices were available. Support was provided with specific diets. Drinks were readily accessible and regularly offered.

Arrangements were in place to promote the safety of the premises, this included maintenance, servicing and checking systems. We found the service to be very clean in the areas we looked at.

People were happy with the accommodation at the service. We found some areas had been upgraded and redecorated to provide for people’s comfort and wellbeing.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005

People told us they were mostly satisfied with the care and support provided at McAuley Mount. We spoke with seven people, three made the following comments: “I am happy with things at the moment”, I think it’s the best I have seen” “Things are generally okay” and “It’s efficient and proficient”.

People were being involved as far as possible in consenting to and planning their support. People were encouraged to maintain and develop their independence skills.

We found people experienced good care and support. They told us they were treated with respect. People were getting support with their healthcare needs and they had ongoing attention from health care professionals.

People were provided with good accommodation. Improvements had been made in up grading the premises, for the comfort and well-being of people using the service.

Processes were in place to help ensure people received care and support from suitably recruited, skilled and experienced staff.

People had been consulted about their experience of service. We found checks of the services’ various systems and practises had been carried out.

People told us they were generally satisfied with the care and support they received at McAuley Mount. Two of the comments we received were: “I am quite happy here” and “Yes I like it, I think it’s the best”.

People were being involved in planning their care and were enabled to make some decisions about matters which affected them. People were encouraged to maintain their independence skills. They told us they were treated with respect and their privacy was maintained.

People told us the care was good, they were getting support with their healthcare needs and they had ongoing attention from health care professionals. However we found some care plan records were not detailed and up to date, which meant peoples’ needs and choices may not be known and properly planned for.

We found the home’s staffing arrangements were sufficient in ensuring people received appropriate care and support.

People spoken with had no complaints about the services being provided at McAuley Mount. They knew how to raise concerns and were aware of the complaints procedures.

People spoken with during the inspection indicated they were satisfied with the care and support provided at McAuley Mount. They said, “They make it as comfortable as they can”, “It never smells”, “I am satisfied here”, “I am completely relaxed here”, “People who visit me say they haven't been in a better place”, “They should get top marks”, “I wouldn’t change it for anything”, “I love it” and “I am blessed to be here”.

People said they were enabled to make choices and decisions about matters which affected them. They said staff treated them well, they were enabled to maintain their independence and were treated with respect. People told us the staff were, nice, good and obliging.

People said they were getting support with healthcare needs and they had ongoing attention from health care professionals. They were being supported sensitively with personal care needs.

Most people spoken with made positive comments about the catering arrangements. Choice menus were available and specific preferences were being provided for.

Positive relationships were being encouraged and we were told visitors were made welcome at the home. People were satisfied with the activities on offer.

People were being consulted about the service and we found that checks on practices and systems were being carried out by managers.

We carried out an unannounced inspection of McAuley Mount Care Home on 22 and 23 October 2014. McAuley Mount Care Home is a care home which is registered to provide care for up to 26 people. It specialises in the care of older people and does not provide nursing care. The philosophy of care is underpinned by the Roman Catholic faith. At the time of the inspection there were 25 people accommodated at the service.

McAuley Mount is situated in Burnley and is a two-storey purpose built care home situated in its own grounds. The accommodation includes apartments (with a lounge, bathroom, bedroom and kitchenette), single en-suite bedrooms and single rooms without en-suite facilities. There is a sun room, a dining room, a conservatory/lounge and a chapel. A passenger lift provides access between the two floors. The grounds are accessible to people using the service. Car parking is available next to the premises.

At the previous inspection on 13 December 2013 we found the service was meeting all the standards assessed.

The service was managed by a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection, people told us they felt safe at the service. One person said, “The security is very high” and a visiting relative commented, “It’s a safe place for mum”. During the inspection we did not find anything to give us cause for concern about people’s wellbeing and safety. Whilst we found each person had risk assessments in place, providing more details will better protect people.

We found there were enough staff available to provide support. During the inspection we observed there were enough staff available to attend to people’s needs, we noted call buzzers were responded to in a timely way. Recruitment practices made sure appropriate checks were carried out before staff started working at the service.

People were receiving safe support with their medicines. However, we found progress was needed to provide clearer directions for staff on the administration of some medicines.

People told us they experienced good care and support. People’s needs were being assessed and planned for before they moved into the service. We found arrangements were in place to monitor and respond to people’s health and well- being. The service had developed good working relationship with health care professionals.

People spoken with indicated they were treated with kindness and compassion. One person commented, “The goodness of people here I can’t describe”. People said their privacy, dignity and independence were respected. One person told us, “They are lovely, they treat everyone with respect”. We observed people being as independent as possible, in accordance with their needs, abilities and preferences.

People told us how they were keeping in contact with families and friends. Visiting arrangements were flexible. A relative told us, “We can call anytime”. People explained how they were supported to follow their own chosen hobbies and interests, such as reading, writing and activities within the community.

During the inspection we observed staff involving people in routine decisions and consulting with them on their individual needs and preferences. However, we found some progress was needed to more effectively screen people’s capacity to make their own decisions.

People were happy with the variety and quality of the meals provided. They said, “The meals we get here are great” and “There’s a minimum of two choices and we can always have something else”. Support was provided with maintaining a healthy diet in response to individual needs.

Systems were in place to ensure all staff received regular training, supervision and support. Care workers spoken with understood their role in providing people with effective care and support.

All the people spoken with had an awareness of the service’s complaints procedure and processes. Arrangements were in place to investigate and respond to any concerns raised.

People made positive comments about the management and leadership arrangements. One person told us, “We have a magnificent manager who is willing to listen and act”. The manager and team leader used various ways to monitor quality. There were systems and processes in place to consult with people and audit the service. The managers had identified several matters for development within the next 12 months. One person who used the service told us, “Overall I think the planning is better”.

The information we hold about this service indicates they consistently meet the requirements of registration and are responsive to the inspection process. Following the inspection visit we contacted the registered manager to provide feedback on our findings. We were given assurances that action would be taken to respond to the identified shortfalls, along with clarification as to how the matters were to be addressed. We were confident the registered persons would take action in response to these matters.