All inspections: Montrose - Care Quality Commission

Montrose Care Home was last inspected on 01/10/2013 and found to be meeting the regulations. A registered manager was in post that supported us at this inspection. 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.

Montrose Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 21 older people.

The provider had systems in place to ensure the quality of the service was regularly reviewed and improvements were made. The care and support people received were regularly audited and areas for improvement recognised. Staff knew people’s needs; the records relating to people’s care and support were kept up to date.

People told us that the staff met their care needs well. One person told us “The staff look after me well and I have plenty of friends here. They know what I like and treat me with a great deal of kindness”. We observed this to be the case.

Staff knew people’s routines and respected them. One person told us “I like to spend time on my own; the staff know this and only come to make sure I am alright if I use my call bell”. Staff knew how to support people when they became anxious and had effective ways of addressing this.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and assessments of people’s capacity had consistently been made. Staff understood some of the concepts of the Act, such as allowing people to make decisions. Staff demonstrated that they could apply this to everyday life.

Staff demonstrated a caring and compassionate approach to people living at the home. People were offered choices at mealtimes such as where to sit and what to eat. The provider had a system to offer choice of what to eat during mealtimes that was effective.

People told us there was enough staff to meet their needs. The provider was able to demonstrate that extra staff were available to support people should their needs change or if extra support was required.

People told us they felt supported at the home and safe in the company of staff. The staff told us they worked well as a team and enjoyed working at the home. They told us there was enough flexibility within their working hours to sit and talk with people and to do things with them that they knew interested them. We observed this to be the case during the inspection.

People told us that they were happy with the care and support they received and the way in which staff supported them. They told us that their views and experiences were taken into account and their decisions were respected. We observed staff speaking to people in a respectful manner.

People had detailed care plans which reflected their needs and choices. We saw that they had been reviewed regularly. People had access to medical support and specialist advice if required. We noted that one visit made by a visiting professional had not been recorded in the person's notes.

Records showed that staff had received the training to do their jobs. Staff we spoke to confirmed that they felt trained and supported to do their jobs.

We found that the home had a medication policy in place. During our visit one medication error was identified. The provider told us the measures that would be taken, which included supervised practice and assessment of competency .

People who used the service had access to a range of activities within the home. People who used the service were observed in a music session on the day of our visit.

Relatives we spoke to said that they were happy with the 'open door policy' and felt that they could approach staff if they had a concern or complaint. We saw that the home's complaint policy had been made accessible. It gave clear guidance on the people that could be contacted with a complaint, both within the organisation and externally.

We previously visited Montrose in February 2012, when we asked the provider to take action because they were not complying with some regulations. The provider sent us an action plan. We made this visit on 28 June 2012 to check that they had made the improvements set out in their action plan, to make sure people were well looked after and safe. We toured the entire home, which enabled us to observe how care was provided and how the home was kept clean. We spoke with three people who lived in the home, two people who were visiting relatives and a visiting district nurse. We also spoke with the manager, two care workers and a cleaner.

One person who lived in the home told us 'the staff know me very well'. We found that aspects of their life that they talked about were documented in their care plan and were well known to staff. A person who had recently moved in told us they had been fully involved in their assessment and that staff had continued gathering information from them. They had a meeting arranged with the manager and family members, to agree the contents of their care plan. A visitor to another person told us 'all the information we have given them has been taken on and we have agreed the needs and how to meet them'. They said this included agreeing an individual menu for their relative, which had been kept to.

All the people we spoke with said there were enough staff to meet people's needs without cutting corners. We saw that staff did not rush, and interactions with people included conversation. During the afternoon, two staff spent time in a lounge with a small group of people who lived in the home. They used opportunities that came up to develop conversations with and between people. A person told us, 'The staff show interest, give me the time to say what I need'. A visitor to the home told us 'It's a homely place, people know each other and are encouraged to take part as much as they want'.

People in the home told us they saw cleaning going on every day and said their rooms were clean. One person told us their room received daily attention and the cleaner was 'meticulous, they pull out the furniture and clean everywhere'. We found high standards of cleaning, although a carpet in a bathroom was not a good choice of flooring.

A person who lived in the home said 'They are always asking me if I'm happy with things'. Another person said 'We get various things to answer; they want to know if we are satisfied. We have meetings where we can raise things'. A visitor told us 'the relatives' meeting was good and the manager is always approachable and responsive'.

We spoke with one person who said the carers "are very good, they look after me well".

Care staff told us it was quicker to use a wheelchair rather than offer to support a person to walk.

Two people we spoke with told us that there were not enough carers at Montrose.

A relative we spoke with told us of their concerns regarding the lack of stimulation and activities provided at the home.

One person told us they had put on weight since living at Montrose because the food is so appetising. Another said "the cooks are wonderful, can't fault the food".

Four people we spoke with knew who to speak with if they had a concern.

One person told us that drops had been prescribed to be put on a wound and that a carer had put them into their eyes.

These older reports are from our old approaches to inspection, including those from before CQC was created.

Archived: Montrose

All Inspections

5 August 2015

During a routine inspection

2 October 2013

During a routine inspection

28 June 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

2 February 2012

During a routine inspection

Reports under our old system of regulation