This inspection visit took place on 23 June 2017 and was unannounced.

The Mount is registered with CQC to provide care and accommodation for a maximum of 19 people who have a learning disability. Local facilities and amenities are within walking distance. The main house is on two floors. There are also two separate bungalows, one for multiple occupancy and one for single occupancy, in which people who are less dependent on staff for support live. At the last comprehensive inspection on 6 & 7 October 2014 the service was rated overall as good.

At this inspection visit there were 17 people living at the service.

At this inspection we found the service remained good.

People we spoke with said staff were kind and caring and they felt safe at The Mount.

There were procedures in place to protect people from abuse and unsafe care. Staff were familiar with these and had received training in safeguarding adults. We saw risk assessments were in place which provided guidance for staff. These measures minimised risks to people.

The registered manager had arranged for people to have increased staffing support. There were sufficient staff available to provide people with personal care and frequent social and leisure activities.

Staff received training to support and care for people. They had the skills, knowledge and experience to provide safe and effective support.

Staff managed medicines safely. Medicines were stored securely, administered as prescribed and disposed of appropriately.

Infection control practice was good and staff had received training in this area.

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.

People told us they were happy with the variety and choice of meals available to them. Staff knew people’s food likes, dislikes and any allergies people had.

Care plans were personalised detailing how people wished to be supported. Their consent and agreement were sought before providing care.

People who received support or where appropriate their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care. Where people were unable to make their own decisions independent advocates were available.

People knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available in text and easy read formats. People said they were encouraged to raise any concerns.

Senior staff monitored the support staff provided to people. Audits of care and support records and risk assessments were carried out regularly. People were encouraged to give their views at the regular ‘residents’ meetings. They and where appropriate their relatives were invited to complete surveys about the quality of their care.

People who used the service were involved with their care and the running of the home. People told us they knew they had a care plan and were involved with meetings about their care. One person said, “My mum helps me and comes to my meetings.”

Information was available for staff to follow which ensured people received the right care and attention to meet their needs. People were positive about the staff; one person told us, “The staff are great they look after me well.”

The premises was well maintained and all areas, both communal and private, were clean and comfortable.

The provider’s recruitment policies and procedures ensured people who used the service were not exposed to staff who should not be working with vulnerable people.

Most of the people who lived in the home had complex needs relating to a learning disability and they were unable to give us detailed information about their experiences of the service.

People we spoke with were very positive about the care and support they received. They told us they liked living at the home and confirmed they were supported to make choices and decisions about the care they received. Comments included “It’s very nice” “I am pleased to be here” and “I like it here.”

The service had recently appointed a manager following the resignation of the previous registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. The new manager had been in post for six weeks and had started the application process with CQC to become registered.

This inspection was unannounced and took place over two days. The last inspection of the service took place on 30 December 2013 when no issues were identified.

The Mount is registered with CQC to provide care and accommodation for a maximum of 19 people who have a learning disability. Local facilities and amenities are within walking distance. At the time of our inspection visit there were 17 people living at the service. The accommodation is on two floors, some rooms have ensuite facilities. There are two separate bungalows, one was for multiple occupancy, and one for single occupancy, in which people who are less dependent on staff for support live.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care provided at the home and their care and social needs were being met. From our observations, and from speaking with staff, people who lived at the home and relatives, we found staff knew people well and were aware of people’ preferences and care and support needs.

We found the service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). These safeguards provide a legal framework to ensure that people are only deprived of their liberty when there is no other way to care for them or safely provide treatment. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and knew how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves were respected.

The registered provider had robust recruitment processes in place which protected people from unsuitable or unsafe staff.

The home was meeting people’s nutritional needs; people were supported to ensure they had enough to eat and drink. People told us they were involved in menu planning. The registered provider took steps to ensure the menu was nutritionally adequate.

Staff involved people who used the service in choices about their daily living and treated them with compassion, kindness, and respect. Everyone looked clean and well-cared for. We saw that people had access to a wide range of activities both within the home and the local community.

People told us there were enough staff to give them the support they needed and our observations confirmed this. The majority of staff had received training considered to be essential. Training had also been organised on specific topics such as diabetes and end of life care.

We observed care was responsive to people’s needs and preferences.

People knew how to make a complaint and we noted the home openly discussed issues so that any lessons could be learned and improvements made where needed. People felt they were able to express their views at any time and told us they were listened to and acted on.

Staff involved people who used the service in choices about their daily living and treated them with compassion, kindness, and respect. People were supported by staff to maintain their privacy, dignity and independence. People’s relatives and friends were able to visit the home at any time.

Leadership and management of the home was good. There were systems in place to effectively monitor the quality of the service and drive a culture of continuous improvement.