Archived: Mont Calm Clifton Crescent

The service had not involved people in the planning of their care and we saw some examples of staff not listening to people or respecting their views. People did not have a care plan in place to meet each of their assessed needs. This meant that staff did not have the information they needed about how to care for people properly. We found some examples where people had not received the care they needed as a result.

The service had not always responded appropriately to allegations of abuse. Staff were not able to show us that they would take the correct action if an allegation of abuse was made. The service had not followed proper procedures for recruiting new staff to ensure that people were kept safe.

The service did not have effective systems for checking the quality and safety of the service and for taking action to improve where needed. Some of the records required to ensure people received the care they needed and were kept safe were inaccurate or out of date.

We carried out this follow up inspection to look at the areas that required action and to check that these improvements had been made. We found that the manager had taken action to review all incidents and accidents that occurred. We looked around the service and spoke with people who lived there, we saw that it was clean and repairs had been carried out. Reference to staff training information found that appropriate training was booked and was due to be delivered.

People we spoke with were satisfied with the care and support received. They said they liked living at Mont Calm and liked the staff. Comments included 'I am quite settled here, it's a relaxed place to live' and 'I am happy with my care, how they keep the home and the food'. People particularly commented that they liked the sea views.

We saw that people were offered choices and their dignity and independence was respected. People told us that they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. They said they had opportunities to choose and take part in activities and enjoyed the events that the service arranged. They told us they had opportunities to offer their views at regular residents meetings.

However, we found that the provider did not always investigate incidents and accidents. This may place people at risk of harm because causes and the prevention of possible further incidents had not been identified.

We found that some areas of the service were not cleaned to and adequate standard or were unhygienic and that some staff training in key areas had lapsed.