We carried out a review of the data available to us about Montgomery Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Montgomery Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Montgomery Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 25 people; some of whom live with dementia. At the time of our inspection 20 people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service
Risks to people were monitored and well managed to minimise the risk of avoidable harm. Staff were provided with guidance about how to manage risks associated with people's care and they monitored people’s safety in line with their individual risk management plans.
There were enough suitably skilled and experienced staff to provide people with safe care and support. The suitability and fitness of staff employed was assessed through a range of pre-employment checks before an offer of employment was made.
Safe infection prevention and control (IPC) measures were followed to minimise the risk of infection. The hygiene and cleanliness of the environment was well maintained.
Accidents and incidents were reviewed to establish how they occurred and how to prevent further occurrences, and any lessons learnt were shared with staff to promote their learning.
People told us they felt safe and well cared for by staff. Family members were confident their relative was kept safe.
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.
A new manager had recently been appointed and was supported by 2 new deputy managers. People and others shared positive feedback about improvements made to the service since the appointment of the new management team. Managers understood their roles and responsibilities and promoted a positive and person-centred culture with led to good outcomes for people.
Checks on the quality and safety of the service were carried out consistently and used to drive improvements where this was needed. People, family members and staff felt fully involved in the running of the service and the care provided.
Staff worked well together as a team, and there was good partnership working with others to meet people's needs. Staff morale was good, and staff felt valued.
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 January 2019).
At our last inspection we recommended that the provider review and monitor the effectiveness of their weekly quality assurance checks. At this inspection we found the provider had acted on this recommendation and had made improvements.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection.
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 Montgomery Care Home 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.
Montgomery is a ‘care 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.
Montgomery Care Home accommodates 24 older people in one adapted building
At the previous inspection we found a breach of Regulations 10,11,12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was because people’s rights to respect and dignity were not always respected; systems were not in place to ensure that people’s consent was sought appropriately; people’s care and treatment was not always planned effectively and audit systems were not in place or always effective. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made and their registered provider was no longer in breach of these Regulations.
Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when, to improve the key questions was the service safe; effective; caring; responsive and well-led to at least good.
We have made a recommendation that the registered provider reviews and monitors the weekly quality assurance checks in place to ensure that they are effective and consistent.
Systems were in place to ensure that people's medicines were safely stored and to help ensure that people received their medicines when they needed them.
People’s living environment was clean and tidy and procedures and equipment were in place to minimise the spread of infection.
Safe recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure that only suitable applicants were employed to support people.
Procedures were in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Records demonstrated that where required, applications had been made on behalf of people in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People had freedom of movement around the service and told us that they had a choice what time they went to bed and got up.
Sufficient staff were on duty to meet people’s needs and wishes.
People were supported by staff who had received training for their role.
People were encouraged to maintain their independence wherever possible.
People using the service felt safe and told us that they knew who to speak with if they had any concerns.
A complaints procedure was in place and people and their family members knew who they would speak to if they wanted to raise a concern or complaint.
People were supported by staff who knew them well.
People had a choice of menu during mealtimes and regular drinks were available; they were happy with the food they were served.
At the time of this inspection there was a manager in post, however, they had not registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Montgomery Care Home is a ‘care 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. Montgomery Care Home accommodates 25 people in one adapted building and specialises in providing care to people living with dementia.
The registered manager had recently left their role and therefore there was no registered manager in post. 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.
During this inspection we identified areas which required improvement that resulted in a breach of Regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. People were seen to have medicine creams and patches applied within communal areas.
We identified areas of improvement that resulted in a breach of Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) 2014. The registered provider did not have effective systems in place to ensure that people’s consent was sought appropriately in relation to the installation of CCTV within the communal areas of the service.
We identified areas of improvement that resulted in a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) 2014. People’s medicines were not always managed appropriately. People’s care and treatment was not always planned effectively and improvements were needed as to how the service planned and mitigated risk for people.
We identified areas of improvement that resulted in a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) 2014. The registered provider did not have effective quality monitoring systems in place. Records relating to people’s care and the management of accidents and incidents were not always appropriately maintained or accurate.
We have made a recommendation that improvements are made to the environment to promote people’s orientation and stimulation around their living environment.
Sufficient staff were on duty to meet the needs of people throughout the day.
People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had a clear understanding of what action they needed to take if they had a safeguarding concern. Procedures were available within the service to support staff in raising any concerns they had.
People and their relatives spoken with felt that the service was safe, clean and tidy and provided a pleasant environment for people to live. Systems and equipment were in place for the prevention of transfer of infection.
People were supported to make everyday choices in relation to what times they got up and went to bed, their meals and where they wanted to be around the service.
Positive relationships had been developed between people using the service and the staff that supported them. People engaged in conversations and laughter and relatives commented on the friendliness of the staff team.
Sufficient staff were on duty to meet the needs of people. Visiting relatives told us that there were always staff available when visiting the service. In addition, relatives felt that staff kept them updated with any changes to their relative’s health and wellbeing.
A formal complaints procedure was available. Both people using the service and their relatives knew who to speak to if they had a concern about the service.