This comprehensive inspection took place on 31 October 2018 and was unannounced. The last inspection of the service was in April 2016 when we rated the service as good for all five questions we ask.

Mountview is a ‘care home’ for 10 people with mental health needs. When we carried out this inspection, five women and four men were living in the 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.

The home is a detached, converted residential property with 10 single rooms and shared communal areas, bathrooms, toilets, laundry and kitchen. There was also a large garden that people told us they enjoyed.

The service had a registered manager but they were on maternity leave when we inspected. The provider notified the Care Quality Commission of the registered manager’s absence and arranged for the registered manager of another service to provide support for the home. 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 provider had a policy and procedures to protect people from abuse, staff understood these and had received training.

Staff assessed risks to people using the service and acted to mitigate any risks they identified.

There were enough staff on duty to support people and the provider carried out checks to make sure new staff were suitable to work with people using the service.

People received the medicines they needed safely and as prescribed.

The provider had policies and procedures that covered the day to day running of the service. They reviewed these regularly and made sure they referred to the latest legislation, guidance and standards.

Staff in the service completed training the provider considered mandatory.

We saw the menu reflected people’s preferences and choices were available. Food was stored safely and fresh fruit and hot and cold drinks were available.

The deputy manager and staff had a good knowledge of their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and worked with people using the service, their families and health and social care professionals to make sure people could make decisions about their care and support, whenever possible.

Where it was necessary to use the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to make sure people were cared for safely, the provider worked with the local authority to achieve this. Although some people using the service were subject to restrictions to ensure their safety, nobody was deprived of their liberty unlawfully.

People using the service and their representatives told us the staff were kind and caring and treated them with respect and dignity.

During the inspection we saw examples of positive interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff knew the people they worked with well and could tell us about their care and support needs, life history, significant people and events.

During the inspection we saw that staff respected people’s privacy, dignity and independence.

The provider had also introduced a ‘Resident of the Day’ scheme in the service.

The provider ensured that people's care records were reviewed regularly and kept up to date. Information contained within care plans was personalised to people's individual needs.

Before people came to live at the service, staff completed a full assessment with them, their relatives and professionals involved in their care to determine if the service could meet their support needs.

People told us they enjoyed varied and meaningful activities and said they could access the local community. Staff supported people to access activ

The inspection took place on 5 April 2016 and was unannounced.

The last inspection of the service was on 9 September 2013 when we found no breaches of Regulation.

Mountview is a care home for up to ten adults with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were ten people living at the service with a range of different needs. The home is owned and managed by MD Homes Limited, a private organisation providing care and nursing homes in Northwest London.

There was a manager in post who has started working at the home one month before the inspection visit. They had not applied to be registered with the Care Quality Commission but told us they were in the process of making the application. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe. Risks to their safety and wellbeing had been assessed and there were action plans in place to minimise the likelihood of harm.

People received their medicines as prescribed and in a safe way.

There were procedures to safeguard people from abuse, which were being followed.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and they had been suitably recruited.

People's capacity to consent had been assessed and recorded.

People were cared for by staff who were supported, trained and had the information they needed for their role and responsibilities.

People were given the support they needed with regards to their physical and mental health.

People's nutritional needs were being met.

People were treated with respect, kindness and consideration. They had positive relationships with the staff who were caring for them.

People's privacy and dignity was respected.

People's individual needs and preferences were recorded and met.

People knew how to make a complaint and felt their concerns were responded to.

The manager had been recruited shortly before the inspection. The staff found the manager supportive and approachable. The manager had ideas for improving the service which included updating records and the record keeping system.

The provider, staff and manager carried out audits and checks to make sure people were receiving a quality service.

We spoke with eight people who use the service, two members of staff and the manager.

Overall feedback was positive from the people using the service. One person told us, “staff offer me choices”, another said, “I am happy with the support I get from staff.” We saw that the staff team supported people to make choices, whilst balancing the presenting risks to the person and/or others. The manager was aware of what to do if people needed to be assessed using the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessments.

We viewed two care records and they contained information on how to support and care for the people using the service. People who use the service were assessed prior to their admission into the home. This was to ensure their needs could be met. Staff followed people's individual care plans and risk assessments which recorded people's particular needs and any potential risks. Where possible, people were involved in the development of their care plan and their views were taken into account.

The medicine systems protected people and ensured they received their prescribed medicines. One person confirmed that they knew what medicines they were taking and why.

Staff received support through one to one supervision, staff meetings and by attending on-going training.

There were various procedures in place to review and monitor the quality of the care provided in the home.

We spoke with four people who were living at the home, the manager and two other members of staff. People were involved in their care and encouraged to express their views about the service. People were supported to access the community and encouraged to improve their independent living skills. One person said, "the staff treat us well and they know what I want" and we observed staff treating people respectfully. People's cultural and spiritual needs were considered as part of their care planning.

Individuals had care plans that clearly identified their needs and recorded the action staff should take to meet them. Care plans considered people's preferences, likes and dislikes and were reviewed at regular intervals to reflect any changes that took place. We observed positive interactions between staff and the people living at the home. Staff were seen including people in daily activities and engaging in board games and playing cards with people. One person we spoke with said, "we are well looked after here".

The home was clean, warm and well maintained. Health and safety audits were completed and the required health and safety certificates were in place. Fire drills were taking place at regular intervals but did not reflect what would happen in the event of a real fire as people were not evacuating the building immediately.

There were adequate numbers of staff available to meet people's needs. The home had an effective complaints management system in place.

People told us that staff were helpful and friendly. They said they were encouraged to do as much as they could independently. People confirmed they had seen their support plans and some people said they had copies of these plans.

People said they could spend time in their bedrooms or in the communal areas as and when they wanted to.

People told us they had privacy and could lock their bedroom doors and keep their personal items in a safe if they wanted to.

People reported that they “felt safe from harm living in the home” and would discuss any concerns or complaints with staff.

Some people could go out without staff, whilst others needed support. They told us that they did various activities, such as gardening and reading, although one person said there were not always enough staff working to take them out into the community. We saw from our visit that people were sometimes limited in going out as and when they wanted to. Extra staff worked where needed, but this had to be arranged and therefore trips out were not always spontaneous.