This unannounced inspection of Mountview Care Home took place on 12 December 2017. Mountview is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Mountview care home accommodates seven people in one adapted building.

At the last inspection of Mountview 21 December 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Mountview had a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us that they felt safe in the service. Staff had been trained in safeguarding people from abuse. Staff demonstrated that they understood the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns in line with the provider’s procedures. People’s needs were met by sufficient number of staff who had undergone safe recruitment checks. Risks were assessed and management plans were developed to mitigate risks identified.

Medicines were administered to people appropriately, clear records were maintained and medicines were stored safely. The environment was safe, clean and hygienic. Staff followed good infection control procedures. Staff kept record of incidents. These were reviewed by the registered manager and actions were discussed with staff so that lessons can be learned.

People’s individual care needs had been assessed and their support planned with input from relevant professionals where required to ensure they are met. Regularly reviews took place to ensure support delivered to people continue to meet their needs.

Staff were trained, supervised and had the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of people. People received food and drinks to meet their nutritional and dietary needs. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals. People received support to attend health appointments and to maintain good health. The service had systems in place to enable smooth transition when people moved between services. There were suitable facilities and adaptations available for people to use.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff understood people’s needs and treated them with respect, kindness and dignity. Staff communicated with people in the manner they understood. Staff supported people to express their views. People’s relatives were involved in their care planning and their views respected.

People received care tailored to meet their requirements and preferences. People were encouraged to follow their interests and develop daily living skills. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. The service provided information to people in an accessible format. People were supported to maintain their religious and cultural values. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service.

The service sought feedback from people and their relatives and used them to improve the service. Staff received the support, direction and leadership they needed. There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service provided. The service worked in partnership with external organisations to develop and improve the service.

This unannounced inspection of Mountview Care Home took place on 12 December 2017. Mountview is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Mountview care home accommodates seven people in one adapted building.

At the last inspection of Mountview 21 December 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Mountview had a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us that they felt safe in the service. Staff had been trained in safeguarding people from abuse. Staff demonstrated that they understood the signs of abuse and how to report any concerns in line with the provider’s procedures. People’s needs were met by sufficient number of staff who had undergone safe recruitment checks. Risks were assessed and management plans were developed to mitigate risks identified.

Medicines were administered to people appropriately, clear records were maintained and medicines were stored safely. The environment was safe, clean and hygienic. Staff followed good infection control procedures. Staff kept record of incidents. These were reviewed by the registered manager and actions were discussed with staff so that lessons can be learned.

People’s individual care needs had been assessed and their support planned with input from relevant professionals where required to ensure they are met. Regularly reviews took place to ensure support delivered to people continue to meet their needs.

Staff were trained, supervised and had the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of people. People received food and drinks to meet their nutritional and dietary needs. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals. People received support to attend health appointments and to maintain good health. The service had systems in place to enable smooth transition when people moved between services. There were suitable facilities and adaptations available for people to use.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Staff understood people’s needs and treated them with respect, kindness and dignity. Staff communicated with people in the manner they understood. Staff supported people to express their views. People’s relatives were involved in their care planning and their views respected.

People received care tailored to meet their requirements and preferences. People were encouraged to follow their interests and develop daily living skills. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. The service provided information to people in an accessible format. People were supported to maintain their religious and cultural values. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy with the service.

The service sought feedback from people and their relatives and used them to improve the service. Staff received the support, direction and leadership they needed. There were systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of service provided. The service worked in partnership with external organisations to develop and improve the service.

At our last inspection on 12 August 2013 we found people were not protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place for the storage, recording and safe administration of medicines. The provider wrote to us on 07 October 2013 to say they had taken action to remedy shortfalls and was meeting the essential standard.

At our inspection on 19 November 2013 we found people using the service were not taking some of the medicines we had seen at our last inspection. We could not therefore assess whether or not the provider had improved its management of these medicines. Where people were taking the same medicines we found the provider was meeting the essential standard.

We did not speak to people using the service at this inspection because of the nature of the compliance action we were following up.

People using the service we spoke with told us they liked living at Mountview and that staff helped them and supported them. For example, one person said: “It’s all new. They give me a bath in the morning. I’m the first one down. Staff give me breakfast.” Another person said: “I like my room… I go to church”.

We observed staff being friendly and respectful towards people using the service, and providing care in a gentle and patient way. The atmosphere in the home was relaxed and people using the service were involved and included in the life of the home, for example preparing and eating supper after they returned from their day’s activities.

In most respects we found people experienced care that met their needs and were cared for by staff who were supported by the provider to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. However not all arrangements were in place to support people with their medication and protect them from all the risks associated with medicines. We found staff acted in accordance with people's wishes and people were protected from the risk of infection.

We visited a service for people who had physical or learning disabilities or both. People had complex needs with limitations on their communication and understanding. Some people who could only express feelings through gesture, facial action or basic signs and noise. Staff were able to understand and work well with the people as they understood their needs. People indicated to us that they were happy with where they were living. Two people told us that "They liked the house" and another said that "Their carer was a good person to be with".

People were well cared for and involved in their personal care where possible. People were comfortable with the staff and we observed a high level of interaction. Detailed care plans and assessments were completed for the people and were regularly updated. People were involved in activities in the community such as the local day services.