Montfort Fields

Updated 28 February 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: Two inspectors carried out the inspection.

Service and service type: Montfort Fields is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: This inspection was unannounced.

What we did when preparing for and carrying out this inspection: We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse; and we sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We assessed the information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection, we spent time with people in the communal areas of the home and we saw how staff supported the people they cared for. We spoke with two relatives, to gain their views about the care provided. We also spoke with the registered manager and four care staff.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people's care documents and multiple medication and records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the home and checks undertaken by the registered manager. For example, systems for managing any complaints, checks on medicines administered and feedback provided by relatives of people living at the home.

Updated 28 February 2019

About the service: This service supported people with learning disabilities and/or autism. It was registered for the support of up to five people. Five people were using the service at the time of the inspection

What life is like for people using this service:

• People had developed strong bonds with staff who knew them well. People were at ease with staff, and enjoyed sharing a joke with them. Relatives were very positive about the caring relationships which had developed between their family members and the staff supporting them. One relative told us, “I can’t fault the staff.”

• Staff spoke warmly about the people they cared for. People were confident to ask for assistance and reassurance from staff when they wanted this.

• People made many of their own day to day choices and decisions. Where people needed support to make some decisions staff assisted them, using people’s preferred ways of communicating.

• Staff promoted people’s rights to privacy and dignity and celebrated people’s independence.

• People were supported to stay as safe as possible by staff who understood risks to people’s safety.

• There were sufficient staff to care for people at times people wanted assistance.

• People were supported to have their medicines safely and checks were undertaken to ensure these were administered as prescribed. People’s medicines were reviewed.

• The risk of infections and accidental harm was reduced, as staff used the knowledge and equipment provided to do this.

• Staff had received training and developed the skills they needed to care for people, through induction and on-going training. One relative told us, “Staff know what they are doing and do a tremendous job.”

• Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink so they would remain well. Meals were served at the times to suit people.

• People had good access to other health and social care professionals. Where people required an admission to hospital to address their health concerns, Montfort Fields staff continued to support them. This helped to ensure people experienced consistency of care and good levels of well-being and physical health.

• 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.

• Staff ensured people had opportunities to do things which they enjoyed in the community and people were supported to keep in touch with others who were important to them.

• The views of people, relatives and other health and social care professionals were considered when people’s care was assessed, planned and reviewed, so people’s needs continued to be met, and care provided as people individually preferred.

• Procedures were in place to take any learning from complaints and to further improve people’s care.

• People’s wishes for their care at the end of their lives were known. The registered manager planned to further develop the care available to people at the end of their lives, so their wishes would be responded to.

• Relatives highlighted how good the communication was with the registered manager and staff team. One relative said, “We have regular meetings, and the [registered] manager is doing a really good job.”

• The registered manager and provider checked the quality of the care provided and sought suggestions for improving people’s care further. Suggestions were listened to and acted on.

• The registered manager kept up to date with best practice developments, so they could drive improvements in people’s care.

•We found the service met the characteristics of a “Good” rating in all areas; For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last report for Montfort Fields was published on 21 September 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.