You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 01 November 2016.

Mill Green provides accommodation and support for a maximum of six adults with a learning disability and or autism. At the time of this inspection there were five people living at the home. People had varied communication needs and abilities. Some people were able to express themselves verbally using one or two words; others used body language to communicate their needs. Everyone who lived at the home required support from staff for all aspects of their life including emotional and physical support.

During our inspection the registered manager was present. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff were available for people when they needed support in the home and for group outings. Opportunities or one to one activities outside of the home would benefit from expansion. We have made a recommendation about this in the main body of our report.

Quality assurance audits and checks were completed that helped ensure quality standards were maintained and legislation complied with. Processes included obtaining and acting on the views of people in order that their views could be used to drive improvements at the home.

Medicines were managed safely and staff training in this area included observations of their practice to ensure medicines were given appropriately and with consideration for the person concerned.

Checks on the environment and equipment had been completed to ensure it was safe for people to use.

Robust recruitment procedures were followed to ensure staff were safe to work with people. People appeared very happy and at ease in the presence of staff. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from harm and abuse.

People were supported to take control of their lives in a safe way. Risks were identified and managed that supported this. Systems were in place for responding to incidents and accidents that happened within the home in order that actions were taken to reduce, where possible reoccurrence.

Staff told us that they had enough time to support people in a safe and timely way. Staff were sufficiently skilled and experienced to care and support people to have a good quality of life. Training was provided during induction and then on an on-going basis.

People’s legal rights to consent were upheld. Capacity to make decisions had been assumed by staff unless there was a professional assessment to show otherwise. The home followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. People were routinely involved in the review of their care packages. People were supported to access healthcare services and to maintain good health. People had enough to eat and drink throughout the day.

Positive, caring relationships had been developed with people. Staff knew what people could do for themselves and areas where support was needed. Staff appeared dedicated and committed.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Activities were offered and people were supported to increase their independent living skills. People were also supported to maintain contact with people who were important to them.

Staff understood the importance of supporting people to raise concerns. Information of what to do in the event of needing to make a complaint was available to people.

People spoke highly of the registered manager. Staff were motivated and told us that management of the home was good. The registered manager w

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was safe.

Staffing levels met people’s needs safely.

Systems were in place that ensured that people received their medicines safely.

Robust recruitment procedures were followed to ensure staff were safe to work with people.

Potential risks were identified and managed so that people could make choices and take control of their lives.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse correctly.

Effective

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were sufficiently skilled and experienced to care and support people to have a good quality of life.

People’s legal rights to consent where upheld. The home was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to eat balanced diets that promoted good health.

People’s healthcare needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and positive, caring relationships had been developed. Staff knew the needs of people and treated them with dignity and respect.

People exercised choice in day to day activities. Systems were in place to involve people in making decisions about their care and treatment and people were supported to use these.

Responsive

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was responsive.

People received individualised care that was tailored to their needs.

Staff supported people to develop their independent living skills, relationships that were important to them and to lead fulfilling lives. At times, staffing levels impacted on opportunities for people to participate in one to one activities outside of the home.

People were listened to and their comments acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 17 November 2016

The service was well led.

People’s views were sought and used to drive improvements at the service. Quality assurance systems were in place that helped to ensure good standards were maintained.

The registered manager was committed to providing a good service that benefited everyone. Staff were motivated and there was an open and inclusive culture that empowered people.