The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: The Mildmays

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

6 Mildmay Park, Islington, London, N1 4PF (020) 3815 2149

Provided and run by:
Notting Hill Housing Trust

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

All Inspections

22 November 2017

During a routine inspection

The Mildmays consists of three buildings that provide extra care services situated at 6 Mildmay Park, 20-26 Mildmay Park and 73 Mildmay Street. People who use the service live in their own flat at these addresses and receive support from care staff with their personal care.

This inspection was short notice, which meant the provider and staff did not know we were coming until shortly before we visited the service. At the last inspection on 10 November 2015 the provider met all of the legal requirements we looked at and was rated good. There had been one recommendation made regarding update of new risk assessments and this had now been resolved.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

People who used the service, and other stakeholders thought the service was safe, however, people did think that communication over changes to the staff rota could be improved.

The service was diligent with ensuring that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were complied with and proper consultation took place to help protect people’s human rights.

People who used the service had a variety of support needs. Any risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed, and the action needed to minimise risks was recorded and were updated regularly.

Staff training included mandatory training required for all staff. There were also opportunities for other training including specific training required where staff worked with people that had specific specialised care needs. Staff participated in regular supervision which was seen by staff as a supportive process. Staff appraisals took place yearly and the provider also undertook a half year appraisal review, so that performance was looked at formally twice each year. Development and training objectives were set arising from the appraisal system.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and worked in ways that demonstrated there was diligence at ensuring this.

People were able to complain and were supported to raise concerns. When concerns were raised these were listened to and the provider was open about action taken and changes made as a result.

People who used the service, relatives and stakeholders had a range of opportunities to provide their views about the quality of the service. The provider worked hard to ensure that people were included in decisions about their care and their views about how the service was run were respected and taken seriously. This was also supported by the range of opportunities people had to share their views and participate in consultation meetings.

At this inspection we found that the service met all of the key lines of enquiry that we looked at and was not in breach of any of the regulations.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

10 November 2015

During a routine inspection

The Mildmays is made up of three extra care services situated at 6 Mildmay Park, 20-26 Mildmay Park and 73 Mildmay Street., People who use the service live in their own apartments at one of these addresses and receive support from care staff with their personal care. There were 99 people using the service at the time of our inspection.

The service had a manager in post that had just commenced their registration with the Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 using the service told us they felt safe and were happy living there. We saw people were looked after by staff who knew them, gave them individual attention and looked at providing additional assistance as and when required.

We observed staff behaving in a caring manner towards people and, with one exception, people told us that staff were caring and kind. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and their individual preferences. There were people of different nationalities living at the service and people were not discriminated against due to their heritage, cultural or religious beliefs, illness or disability.

We found that staff received training to support them with their role when they joined the service and on a continuous basis, including the opportunity to obtain a professional qualification in care, to ensure they could meet people’s needs effectively.

People told us they were supported to maintain their independence and maintain their life skills with no more than the necessary support from staff that was required to help them retain their independence.

People received regular assessments of their needs and any identified risks. The service worked well with external agencies and people’s families and friends.

People, staff and professionals who had contact with the service spoke positively about the new manager and most specifically about the high quality of care that the staff team provided. People thought the service was well organised and that their needs were met.

30 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We found that people's needs were routinely assessed and when we spoke with care staff, they demonstrated that they knew people's care and support needs.

People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We saw examples of where people's choices could put them at risk of harm. The service provided appropriate support to make sure that people were not prevented or restricted from exercising those choices and were protected from harm.

Staff received core training and the majority of staff were working towards a vocational qualification. Specific training had also been provided based on the needs of people who used the service. Staff we spoke with told us that they felt supported and personal development was encouraged.

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and their views were acted on. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

When we last visited the service we found that the provider had not notified the Care Quality Commission as required, about the majority of safeguarding incidents that had been identified at the service. When we visited this time, we found that the provider had notified the Care Quality Commission of incidents as required.

4 July 2012

During a routine inspection

Two inspectors visited the service over the course of a day. We visited each of the three sites where extra care services were provided. At each site we spoke with people who use the service and with care staff. We also spoke with the manager of the service and examined a range of records including personal files, personnel files and other records relating to the running of the service.

People who use the service commented that it was a 'really excellent service', and that they were 'generally very happy'. One person told us 'I feel very comfortable living here'.

We found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected, and that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We also found that people who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. There were appropriate arrangements in place in relation to the obtaining, administration and recording of people's medicines. We looked at training records that showed that staff received regular training in core areas. We found that care staff were supervised either individually or in groups every one to two months.

There was an effective complaints system in place, and comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately. We did find that whilst the provider had taken appropriate action when people using the service were involved in accidents or incidents, this information was not always notified to the Care Quality Commission.

27 May 2011

During a routine inspection

People who use the service told us that they were happy with the service and felt settled and comfortable. People's privacy and dignity was respected and promoted, and staff sought people's consent for the care provided. Individual plans and assessments had been developed with each person receiving a service.

The provider had established good links with other agencies and professionals working with people using the service. Good standards of hygiene and cleanliness were promoted by staff. Equipment used in the care of people was regularly maintained and serviced.

The provider generally had sound recruitment practises, and maintains accurate records that were securely held.

Some people did not always receive the service detailed in their plan, and some assessments had not been recently updated. There were also concerns about poor medication practise by some staff. Some issues were identified with the way the service responds to and records complaints.

Whilst the majority of staff had undertaken regular refresher and professional development training, some staff had not completed core update training. Some key areas of training for example, how to effectively support people with complex and challenging behaviours had not been provided to any staff.