Milford House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.
People were supported by kind and caring staff. We observed staff supporting people to engage in an activity during the assessment. Staff spoke kindly to people and treated them with respect. Staff were observed greeting people in a friendly way. People appeared comfortable in the presence of staff and engaged in friendly conversation with them.
We also observed people being supported at lunchtime. Staff were observed to be standing away from people and only supported people discreetly when required. For example, we observed staff asking if people would like an apron, and people’s choices were respected.
People and relatives said that staff were caring. Comments included, “Staff are lovely”, “The nursing care is outstanding, staff treat [person] with kindness. It is amazing here, so welcoming” and “Staff are very good.”
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People’s individual needs were recorded in their care plans. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge and understanding of people’s preferences and it was evident they knew people well. We observed staff engaging people in conversation and taking time to make sure people were engaged in activities in the service. Staff adapted their communication style to ensure people were involved. For example, people and staff were talking about flowers. One person was asked what type of flower they like best and did not answer. Staff then gave the person options to choose from, and the person then engaged.

Where people were not able to, or chose not to access communal spaces, activities were provided on a 1:1 basis in people’s rooms. This meant people still had the opportunity to take part in activities in line with their needs.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People told us there was regular activities and community engagement. We observed people were engaged in arts and crafts, baking and trips out in the local area. Once a week there was music therapy. People could access this as a group activity or on a 1-1 basis depending on their preference. One person said, “The activities are good; I like those, we need them. A man comes here and plays the piano. We all have instruments and we join in” and “We like going out on a minibus. We go to this boat and take a trip down to Southampton. We went to a nursery to see the little children, recently, and the nursery children have also come to us. We go to the museum and the cathedral; we did art in the cathedral. We made pictures of fish here, and they hung them all up, that was the theme. We have got to take it in turns to go out but feel we go out enough.”

We saw evidence of various planned activities displayed on posters in communal areas of the service. One staff member told us, “We get out in the garden. There are minibus trips once every 2 months or so, they go on a boat trip and to the museum.”

People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family. There were no restrictions on visiting and we observed lots of visitors at the service making use of facilities to make refreshments. Relatives spoke with us about the ‘homely’ atmosphere which they liked and felt was important. One relative said the atmosphere was “warm and homely.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed staff responding to people’s needs in a timely way. For example, when people asked for drinks, this was provided promptly. We observed there were enough staff available in communal areas to meet people’s needs effectively. People told us they did not have to wait long for staff to support them. Staff also told us there were enough of them working to be able to respond to people’s needs promptly.

We observed people in their rooms had access to call bells which they used to request assistance from staff. Staff appeared to be responding to these in a timely way. The regional director said they monitored call bell response times and investigated any that were not answered within the provider’s standard timeframe.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider had various systems for staff to access to help with their wellbeing. All staff had an application on their phones to access a wide range of resource. For example, staff could get confidential and free advice on areas such as counselling, mental health, physical health and bereavement. The provider also made sure staff could access this support for their immediate family members. Information about services available was also advertised on posters in staff areas of the service.

If staff had health conditions, this was shared with occupational health services and if needed reasonable adjustments could be made to working patterns. The provider had human resource staff for the region who were available to offer specialist advice and support to staff. There were also wellbeing champions amongst the staff team who could provide further signposting to staff if needed. These roles gave staff opportunity to discuss any issue and get advice and guidance.

There was an employee of the month scheme. Individual staff were nominated by people, relatives and other staff to be the employee of the month. Staff in receipt of the most votes were given a small gift which was presented to them by people living at the service.