Montpellier Manor

Updated 13 April 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 9 March 2021 and was announced.

Updated 13 April 2021

This inspection took place on 14 January 2019. The inspection was unannounced.

Montpellier Manor is a purpose-built care home. It is a three-story building providing care and accommodation for up to 85 people assessed as requiring residential care. This includes people living with a dementia type illness. At time of our inspection there were 39 people living at Montpellier Manor.

Montpellier Manor is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was a 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.

This is the first time the service has been inspected by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) since it’s registration in April 2018.

Safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and procedures were in place to help protect people from harm. Staff knew how to identify and report suspected abuse. The people we spoke with during this inspection told us they felt the service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed and staff knew what to do to reduce identified risks to people. Environmental risk assessments were in place covering tasks carried out by staff. Maintenance and equipment checks were undertaken to help ensure the environment was safe. Emergency contingency plans were in place. Staff followed infection control practices to reduce the risk of the spread of infection. Medicines were managed safely.

We received mixed feedback on staffing levels from people and staff. The staffing levels provided within the home met the service’s dependency tool. We found during this inspection that people’s needs were responded to quickly. Recruitment practices helped ensure that suitable staff were employed. Pre-employment checks were made to reduce the likelihood of the service employing staff who were unsuitable to work with vulnerable people.

People’s care files were personalised and contained the information staff needed to support them well. 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. The policies and practices of the service helped to ensure that everyone was treated equally.

People had access to and the provider worked with a range of healthcare services such as GPs, district nurses and mental health professionals. People’s nutritional needs were met.

People were supported by a regular team of staff who were knowledgeable about their likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff were kind and respectful towards people. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected. Staff encouraged people to access a range of activities.

The premises were very spacious, clean and tidy. The environment had been thoughtfully designed to meet the needs of people.

End-of-life care procedures were in place. People who chose to plan this area of their lives had very detailed, sensitive care plans in place.

Most of the staff we spoke with told us that the management team supported them well.

Feedback was sought to monitor and improve the service. Meetings for people, relatives and staff took place.

Following reviews of accidents and incidents themes and trends were addressed and lessons were learnt. A clear complaints policy and procedure was in place and followed by the provider. Robust quality assurance systems were in place.