• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Milton Court Care Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Tunbridge Grove, Kents Hill, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, MK7 6JD

Provided and run by:
Avery Homes RH Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

11 and 14 September 2015

During a routine inspection

Milton Court Care Centre is registered to provide accommodation and support for 148 older people who require nursing or personal care, and who may also be living with dementia. On the day of our visit, there were 72 people living in the home.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 and 14 September 2015.

The service did not have a registered manager although the manager, who was new in post, had submitted their application to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to become registered manager. 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.

People felt secure in the service and confirmed that staff kept them safe and free from harm.

Staff had an understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report potential abuse. Appropriate action was taken to keep people safe, minimising any risks to their health and safety.

Personalised risk assessments were in place to reduce the risk of harm to people, as were risk assessments connected to the running of the home. Staff understood how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against their right to take risks.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and the causes of these analysed so that preventative action could be taken to reduce the number of occurrences.

Robust checks took place in order to establish that staff were safe to work with people before they commenced employment.

Staffing levels had been calculated in accordance with current guidance and based on the dependency levels of the people who lived at the home.

There were effective systems and processes in place to manage people’s medicines.

Staff were supported through a system of induction and on-going training, based on the needs of the people who lived at the service.

People’s consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were met.

People had choice of good, nutritious food that they enjoyed. We found that people’s weight was monitored, with appropriate referrals made to the dietician when concerns were identified.

Referrals to other health and social care professionals were made when appropriate to maintain people’s health and well-being.

Staff engaged with people in a friendly manner and assisted them as required, whilst encouraging them to be as independent as possible.

Relatives were involved in the review of people’s care needs and were kept informed of any changes to a person’s health or well-being.

There were regular meetings for staff which gave them an opportunity to share ideas, and give information about possible areas for improvements to the manager.

People and their relatives knew who to speak to if they wanted to raise a concern. There were appropriate systems in place for responding to complaints.

The service was led by a manager who was well supported by a robust management structure. The manager and staff told us that they wanted to provide good quality care for people. As a result, quality monitoring systems and processes were used effectively to drive future improvement and identify where action needed to be taken.