Milford House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and their representatives were involved in planning the care they needed. Care records demonstrated staff took an individual approach to meeting people’s needs. When people moved into the service, they had a ‘getting to know me’ book. This gathered information about people’s needs which helped staff learn about people and their families. Staff were aware of people’s history, what was important to them and how they liked their care provided.

We observed care that was person-centred and met people’s needs. Staff demonstrated they were working in line with people’s care plan guidance. Staff knew how to communicate with people and people’s feedback confirmed they were happy with their care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The provider worked with other services, to ensure people received continuity of care. Examples included specialist nurses, social workers and dieticians. Details of this support was recorded in people’s care records.

Leaders had a good understanding of what care and support they could deliver and who would benefit from the service. For example, if there were rooms available, the service offered respite to people living locally. If people were using the service for short stay, staff liaised with relevant professionals to make sure they had the information they needed to assess and plan for people’s care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The regional director told us people were encouraged to come to the service prior to moving in to have a look around and learn about what was available. On arrival people were supplied a welcome pack which had all key information for them about moving into a care home.

Assessments completed prior to people moving in identified if people had any specific communication needs. A communication care plan was produced which recorded people’s individual communication needs and any adaptions needed. For example, if people needed information in larger font, or pictorial formats. When people needed glasses or hearing aids this was recorded in their communication care plan.

If staff supported people to attend health appointments leaders made sure staff had the communication skills and understanding needed to support the person effectively. Relatives confirmed information about consultations was shared with them in a timely way.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints process which had been shared with people and relatives when moving into the service. Complaints were recorded and investigated and responded to within the provider timescales. People were signposted to other agencies if they were not satisfied with how complaints were managed.

People were able to raise any concerns or share feedback in different ways. People could use the formal complaints process, attend meetings or share their views in care reviews. For areas such as food and drinks there were short surveys available in dining rooms. The forms had space for people to share written feedback or use symbols such as a happy face.

There was a ‘you said, we did’ display in reception which shared what actions the service had taken in response to feedback. Most recent suggestions from people were to have a glass of sherry in the evenings. In response staff had stocked sherry on the beverage trolley for people to select if they wished. Another suggestion was people had asked for an Indian themed meal event. In response the chef was organising an evening of Indian dishes by the end of March.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Assessments included the support people required to access the care they needed, including any specific equipment or adaptations. Assessments were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed. Accessibility of the building was considered as part of people’s needs assessment and on-going reviews. Where needed, adaptations were made, for example, the use of pendant alarms to enable people to be more independent.

People had their own rooms and access to communal areas. People also had access to outside space from the ground floor. There were some ground floor rooms that had doors opening onto gardens to give people direct routes to the outdoors.

The service was staffed 24/7 and there was nursing staff available on every shift. This meant people with nursing needs had a registered nurse consistently overseeing their care. There was an on-call system which enabled staff to get management advice and guidance at any time. This helped make sure people’s health needs were managed in a timely way.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider and leaders were knowledgeable and had a good understanding of potential inequality and discrimination. People were treated equally and people’s human rights were promoted. For example, people’s rights to privacy, dignity and respect were promoted and respected by all of the staff.

There was a ‘resident ambassador’. This was a person living at the service who could speak up for others if they did not want to or were not able to do so themselves.

Staff were trained and knowledgeable about potential barriers to people’s care. For example, staff made sure people had all support needed to attend external health appointments, including booking transport. If people were not able to leave the service, staff sought what people needed to come to them. For example, there was a visiting chiropodist, hairdresser and optician.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

There was no end-of-life care being provided at the time of this assessment, however, staff had experience of providing this type of care. Training had been provided to staff and there were links established with the local hospice service to upskill and develop staff further.

Staff were aware of people’s wishes for the future, for example, whether people wanted to go to hospital for further treatment or whether they had a do not attempt resuscitation plan in place. This information was recorded in people’s care plans.

The provider was piloting specialist end-of-life care in some of their other services. If the pilot was a success this would be shared more widely.