Montpelier Terrace

Montpelier Terrace is a residential care home providing personal care to 4 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 6 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support:

Staff had supported people at the home for a long time. There were positive relationships with people and staff knew their needs extremely well. Staff supported people to engage in their chosen activities and to access the community. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Right Care:

Staff understood how to communicate effectively with people so they were empowered to make choices. Staff treated people well and with dignity and respect. Relatives were positive about the service and felt their family members were safe and well cared for.

Right Culture:

The service had a family orientated, person-centred culture. People’s needs were prioritised and there was good communication with relatives and professionals. The registered manager was committed to on-going improvement to ensure people led fulfilling lives.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 21 April 2018).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions Safe and Well-led. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Montpelier Terrace on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People received good care, in the way they wanted it, from kind and caring staff. A person said, “I would say that they employ good staff, they have good intentions. I feel like they are good people and speak to me in a friendly and concise way, which is what I like.” A relative commented, “[Family member] is extremely well cared for, staff are extremely helpful and make sure [family member] doesn’t get into any trouble, I can’t fault them.”

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and the whistle blowing procedure. They also knew how to report concerns if required.

The provider followed effective procedures when recruiting new staff.

Trained staff administered medicines safely and accurate records were maintained.

The provider carried out health and safety checks to maintain a safe environment.

Relatives described the home as willing to learn from situations and adapt accordingly to meet people’s changing needs.

Staff received good support and had access to relevant training opportunities.

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 were supported with their nutritional and health care needs.

People’s needs had been assessed to identify the support they needed. This was used to develop personalised care plans. Staff used a visual tool to monitor people’s progress across various aspects of the life.

People were provided with opportunities to participate in activities of their choosing.

There had been no complaints about the service. People and relatives gave us positive feedback about the service.

The service had an established registered manager. People, relatives and staff described the registered manager as approachable and supportive.

A range of quality assurance checks were completed to help ensure people received good care and support.

People, relatives and staff had opportunities available to provide feedback about the home. Recent feedback from relatives had been very complimentary.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Montpelier Terrace is registered to provide care and support for up to six people with autism spectrum condition and associated complex needs. There were four people living at the home during this inspection. The house is divided into three flats. This home does not provide nursing care.

Montpelier had a registered manager in place. 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 they felt “safe” at the home and enjoyed living at the house. The people who lived here were able to comment on the service they received and said they would feel able to raise any issues with the registered manager or with their own relatives. Other people we spoke with had no concerns about the safety of the service. A relative commented, “I feel very reassured that my family member is safe.”

Staff told us they were confident that any concerns would be listened to and investigated to make sure people were protected. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. The provider made sure only suitable staff were employed. Staff helped people manage their medicines in a safe way.

People were supported to increase their daily living skills and were fully involved in shopping, choosing and preparing meals. Staff felt well trained and supported by Education and Services for People with Autism (ESPA) to carry out their role. People were assisted to contact health services, such as GPs and opticians, whenever needed.

People were supported to take acceptable risks so they had as independent a lifestyle as possible. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who lacked capacity to make a decision and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to make sure they were not restricted unnecessarily.

People told us they liked the staff and the service and felt well supported. One person commented, “I like the staff. I like being at Monty [Montpelier].” Other people told us they felt the registered manager and staff were “nice” and “very good”. There were good relationships between people and staff. People were supported in a way that respected their abilities, preferences and diversity.

A relative told us, “[My family member] has an excellent quality of life and we as a family are most appreciative of the valuable work done at Montpelier and ESPA.” A care professional told us that the service was caring “without question” and that they had witnessed this first hand when visiting the home.

Care records were written in a positive, personalised way that valued the individuality of each person. People had a range of social and vocational activities they could take part in. People were also involved in domestic tasks such as cleaning, cooking and laundry which were an essential part of their goals towards greater independent living skills.

Relatives said they were invited to comment on the service at reviews and through surveys and felt there was good communication with staff at the home. People knew how to raise concerns or complaints and were confident these would be looked into and resolved

People, relatives and staff felt the organisation was well run and the home was well managed. There was an open, approachable and positive culture within the home and in the organisation. People were asked for their views of the service and were kept informed about the running of the home.

The provider had a quality assurance system that included checks by the registered manager and staff of the safety of the service.

People had clear information about the service. People had information in different ways to help them make their own decisions. One person told us, 'I use pictures of my favourite places to choose where I want to go.'

People felt the home supported them to gain new skills. One person said, 'It's brilliant here. They've really helped me. I can do so much now, like travel training and cooking. I can cook my meals now which I couldn't do before.'

People felt they were involved in planning their support. One person told us, 'I'm involved in making plans about what I'm going to do and choosing what I want to do.'

Staff were well trained and supported by the provider. Staff told us, 'We're always kept up to date with our training. There lots of training in relevant subjects.'

The provider had systems to check the quality and safety of the service. Records used to manage the service were stored in the right way.

One person told us, 'The staff support me with household things, advice and budgets. We go out whenever and wherever we choose. It's really good here but I'm hoping to move on sometime.'

Each person was involved in setting the menus, shopping for groceries and preparing meals. Each person had a catering budget and staff supported people with healthy lifestyles.

The house was divided into three flats. The accommodation was well decorated and furnished. The two people we spoke with felt the standard of their accommodation was 'good'.

People told us they were 'comfortable' and 'safe' at this home. All the people we spoke with felt confident about making any comments or raising concerns with either their key worker or with the manager.