Mill 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 for this key question 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’s care and support was person centred. Care plans were developed around people’s original assessments and adapted over time with agreed outcomes for people and regular communication about their needs.

To help people feel safe and promote the safety of others, staff established consistent daily routines and helped people to self- regulate through regular key worker sessions, keeping mood diaries and accessing exercises and therapies. People reported feeling safe and secure.

Daily notes reflected people’s needs and how care plans were adhered to. People were supported with holidays and day trips around their friendship groups and interests.

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 manager was proactive in addressing people’s needs and confident in accessing services having a good understanding of the resources available and advocating for people to ensure they received what they were entitled to. This included regular access to health care, support in accessing benefits and accessing community and mental health services.

People accessed the local community and where appropriately engaged in work experience and volunteering opportunities.

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

The providers documentation complied with Accessible information standards, (AIS) and was provided in appropriate formats and consent was sought from people to share personal information on a need-to-know basis.

Information around the service signposted people to things they needed to know. A relative told us, “I've seen a care plan and I have been involved.” Others told us about multiple meetings, and they were always provided an update. Some relatives lived a distance away and appreciated the monthly newsletter which kept them up to date and said they could visit and contact the service at any time in line with the person's needs.

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.

Feedback from people was used to inform improvement across the service, ‘You said we did’ feedback included issues around staffing, care and the environment and these were being addressed.

People had key workers meetings, so staff were aware of what people wanted to do or any concerns they had. One person raised concerns with us on the 1st day of inspection, and the manager immediately dealt with this and asked for feedback from the person so their concerns could be addressed.

Staff told us they were consulted and actively took part in supervision and team meetings as well as reflective practices.

Relatives all praised the communication from the home.

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

People were supported to access services which included regular health care visits including district nurses and chiropody. People were encouraged to register and follow up with dental appointments and there was a clear record for this.

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.

Staff understood people’s experiences of care and life stories. These were shared where appropriate should people wish for their history to be known to help staff understand struggles and trauma they may have faced.

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.

Thinking ahead plans were in place. The manager was clear the service had its limitations and would only support people if they were able and would try and make reasonable adjustment. Where people were willing to discuss their needs should they become unwell or need support around their physical care, this was documented and revisited.

Where people did not wish to have these discussions, this was documented and staff recorded peoples wishes as and when known.