Angel Mount Care Home

A recommendation from the last inspection in relation to the environment had been addressed and was safe. Accidents and incidents were managed well. Safeguarding procedures were robust and people felt safe living at this service. A recommendation from the last inspection in relation to specific training for staff had been addressed. There were sufficient numbers of trained staff employed. However, recruitment processes were not always robust and some staff did not have a completed application form or references from their most recent employer. Work was needed to improve the infection prevention and control of the service and medicine records needed to be strengthened to ensure good practice guidance was followed.

People’s needs were assessed prior to their admission to the service. These assessments were used to formulate person centred plans. Monitoring tools were in place and people’s weights were monitored. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and people’s consent was sought. However, relatives raised concerns about the staffs ability to recognise when a person had deteriorated but felt confident in the nursing staff abilities.

People and their relatives consistently told us they were supported and treated well. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted and we observed people to be treated with kindness, compassion and patience. Care plans contained information on people’s life history and each person had an electronic screen in their bedroom which included the person’s preferences, these acted as a guide for staff. We witnessed both group and individual activities taking place and there was a great focus on staff wellbeing. However, concerns were raised by partners about staff and language barriers which may cause confusion for people living at this service.

People’s communication needs had been considered and people were being cared for in a person-centred way. The service, including people’s bedrooms, had been personalised and people’s own preferences had been considered. Referrals were made to other healthcare professionals and complaints were reviewed and analysed. Staff felt people were cared for well and regular reviews of care plans took place, alongside people and their relatives. However, concerns were raised about the communication between staff and relatives and not all relatives were aware of meetings or feedback forms.

A recommendation from the last inspection had been addressed and the provider ensured closer oversight and auditing of records to ensure staff were following systems and process. A range of audits and safety checks were in place to monitor and improve the service, however, not all checks were robust enough to identify the concerns found during the inspection process. The culture of the service was positive and staff felt listened to. Staff meetings were taking place and lessons learnt was shared during these meetings. Staff told us they worked as a team and felt supported by the management team. The registered manager spoke passionately of how they were constantly trying to improve the wellbeing of people living at this service.