Millies Care and Support Agency Limited

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 70 (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 spoke positively about the care they received, describing staff as “very nice, approachable and easy to talk to”. Other comments included “staff were confident, well trained, attentive to detail and good listeners” and “staff had lovely personalities, converse well with me” and “the carers are caring and show empathy”.

People remarked that staff were flexible when they wanted anything done differently. One person said “Staff are always helpful, they remind me of things that I forget.” Leaders told us they operated a service which was flexible around people’s needs.

Feedback demonstrated staff communicated effectively and engaged well with individuals and their families. This meant people experienced caring and compassionate support that helped them feel valued, respected and understood.

The provider treated people as individuals and ensured their care, support and treatment reflected their needs and preferences. Staff took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, cultural backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Feedback from relatives was positive. One relative told us “staff constantly ask how my relative is and demonstrated good listening skills, responding promptly whenever anything specific was needed”.

Another relative reported that carers took time to engage meaningfully, even when communication was more challenging due to hearing difficulties. Comments included: “They are happy to sit down and talk to my relative,” and “They don’t seem rushed to get away”. Managers confirmed this. Comments included: “We always have time for people – be that if they call the office, pop in or when staff are delivering care”.

This meant people experienced compassionate, respectful and person‑centred care that promoted their comfort, dignity and wellbeing.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence or ensured they understood their rights and had choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care records contained details of what support people required from staff and what they could do independently. However, staff did not always have an in-depth knowledge of the people they supported. People told us their regular staff were good, but people frequently received care from carers who did not know them well.

Care plans captured people’s likes and dislikes. However, the records viewed during our inspection did not always demonstrate how people’s choices were consistently considered or reflected in the delivery of care. For example, one care plan stated that a person required support to eat regular, healthy meals, but records did not demonstrate the person had any choice or control over what meals were selected.

This meant there was limited assurance that people’s choices were consistently taken into account in practice.

However other records we viewed showed the provider was supporting people with their rights to choice, one person wanted regular contact with a family member and staff supported them with face to face contact. Another person did not want to bathe regularly. The provider recognised this was their right to refuse. This meant the provider was respecting people’s autonomy and upholding their rights to make decisions about their own lives, even when those decisions differed from staff preferences. People were supported in a way that recognised their individuality and choices.

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.

One relative said, “Care staff are very amiable and very friendly, and are eager to offer a helping hand professionally. They are quick to solve queries. We are never an inconvenience to them when talking to staff.” This was confirmed on the day of inspection as we heard staff talking on the phone to people, being responsive and solving problems as they arose.

Comments from people included: “[carers] are great, I was not feeling well one morning and they telephoned 111 and got advice for me”. Records showed a person had fallen overnight. On arrival, carers immediately telephoned for an ambulance for the person. Carers also told us they went to the hospital with the person. The person confirmed this, saying “I couldn’t have asked for more really’.

This meant people experienced responsive, compassionate and supportive care that promoted their comfort and wellbeing.

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

Staff reported feeling well supported and said managers were understanding and responsive to their personal circumstances. They told us their concerns were listened to and that working arrangements were flexible when required.

One member of staff said their safety was prioritised, describing systems such as monitoring carer’s log‑ins, checking in when someone was late, issuing weather advice and providing out‑of‑hours support. Additional staff were allocated when lone working posed increased risk.

Another member of staff described receiving personalised support during periods of ill‑health or life challenges. They valued the opportunities for professional development, including funded qualifications. Managers confirmed this by saying “We are always at the end of the phone for staff, at any time – we care”.