Mount Vernon Terrace

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. We found significant improvements had been made at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

People and those important to them were supported to understand safeguarding and how to raise concerns when they didn’t feel safe. When concerns had been raised, the management team had promptly reported these to the relevant agencies to make sure timely action was taken to safeguard people from further risk.

Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse and knew how and when to report any concerns they had to the management team.

People were being supported to have choice and control and were involved in planning their care. Managers reviewed staffing levels regularly to make sure there were always enough on duty. Staff showed a good understanding of specific areas of people’s care needs.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations related to person centred care and consent. Improvements had been made at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

People’s needs and rights were being fully supported. People’s care and treatment was effective due to their health, care, well-being, and communication needs always being assessed with them and relevant external teams. Peoples care plans and risk assessments were kept up to date and regularly reviewed.

The management and staff team showed a good understanding and knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act, including capacity and consent. Staff were clear of how to support people living with fluctuating capacity.

Staff were aware of people’s preferences and respected these in a person-centred way. People were aware of their rights around care and treatment.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At the last assessment this key question was rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always being met through good organisation and delivery. At this assessment, this key question has improved to good. This meant people’s needs were effectively met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment, this key question was rated requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has improved to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. The management team and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service. At this assessment we found significant improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.

There were clear and effective governance, management and accountability arrangements in place at Mount Vernon Terrace. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The management team were fully accountable for the actions, behaviours and performance of staff. The systems to manage current and future performance and risks to the quality of the service showed an improved, robust approach. Data or notifications had been consistently submitted to external organisations as required. There were robust arrangements for the availability, integrity and confidentiality of data, records and data management systems. Information was used effectively to monitor and improve the quality of care. The management team implemented recognised standards and best practices, to improve experiences and outcomes for the people living at the service.