You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 January 2018

Mill House is a large detached stone built property which provides accommodation for up to five people with autism. At the time of our inspection there were five people in receipt of care from the service.

At our last inspection in May 2015 the service achieved an overall rating of ‘Good’. This inspection took place on 15 August and 5 September 2017. We also spoke with relatives and professionals on 21 August 2017. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall and was rated ‘Outstanding’ in the responsive domain.

People received high quality person-centred care from staff who understood their needs. The service had in place a number of good practice systems which facilitated people being able to communicate to staff the type of care they wanted to receive.

Care documents were significantly detailed and accurately reflected to a high degree each person’s history and needs. Guidance given to staff on to how meet people’s needs was very specific. Regular reviews were carried out with people who used the service and included their relative’s voice to ensure people’s care provision was up to date and reflected their individual preferences.

The staff had extensively researched holidays abroad when the people using the service wanted to go on a group holiday. This included researching the needs of people with autism when using airports. Staff found and implemented autism passports at their departure airport which assisted people going through security checks and prevented any distress to the people from the service who were going on holiday.

We found people were enabled to live extremely fulfilling lives in which they were given choice about their activities. Staff supported people to carry out highly individual choices and suggested alternative activities, for example growing vegetables, to give people who used the service a broad spectrum of options. Staff had also introduced themed events around different cultures. This enabled people to learn about diversity and participate in events which were new and meaningful to them.

Risks assessments in the service were well-documented and were highly personalised. Staff demonstrated they understood the risks and the required actions to keep people safe.

Staff understood the needs of people with autism and the very individual needs of each person who lived at Mill House. We found when there was a transition to be made, people’s needs were considered in great detail.

We spoke to relatives who told us they had no concerns about the service and confirmed they had not made any complaints. The manager told us no one had made a complaint about the service. Relatives said they felt involved in the service and in the care of their family members.

Staff were supported through a programme of induction, training and appraisal. We saw staff recruitment was robust. Staff underwent pre-employment checks before they started working at the service. Managers in the service were due to start management development training.

Staff had been trained in safeguarding and were confident if they raised a concern with their manager they would respond appropriately. Relatives told us they had confidence in the management of the home.

We reviewed people’s medicines and found there were safe systems in place for their storage and administration. Guidance was available to staff to support them to give people medicines which were required on an ‘as and when’ basis.

Relatives and professionals alike told us they thought people who used the service were well cared for. We found staff respected people’s privacy and dignity. People’s independence was encouraged by staff.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service had systems and processes in place to monitor quality. Audits were regularly carried out. The service used an ex

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 January 2018

The service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 January 2018

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 January 2018

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Outstanding

Updated 16 January 2018

The service was extremely responsive.

We found staff were exceptionally responsive to people's individual needs.

The service used a number of best practice methods to enable people to be involved and supported to describe their care and the goals they wanted to achieve.

When people had elected to go on a group holiday abroad staff had extensively researched the holiday, gave people choices and utilised autism passports they had found were in place at their departure airport.

We found staff took a very proactive approach to involving people and their relatives in meeting people’s needs. Relatives told us as a result of this approach they had not needed to make any complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 January 2018

The service remains Good.