- Care home
Thomas Edward Mitton House
Assessment report published 15 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 28 April 2026 to 12 May 2026.
Thomas Edward Mitton House is a care home supporting people who may be living with a physical disability, mental health needs or be autistic or living with a learning disability. The service provides accommodation for people who need personal care and nursing care, primarily on a short-term basis for rehabilitation after an injury. The service can support up to 16 people, and 9 people were using the service at the time of our inspection.
At our last inspection, the service was in breach of a legal regulation of the Health and Social Care Act (2014) in relation to good governance. At this inspection the service is still in breach of this legal regulation, and we also found new breaches of legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding people from abuse, person centred care, safe staffing and good governance. The service rating has changed from requires improvement to inadequate at this inspection. Please see the full report for details.
People were not always safe as care plans and risk assessments were not detailed to ensure staff supported them safely. Staff did not always support people in line with their assessed support needs. People’s needs were not adequately assessed when they started using the service. Their rehabilitation journey whilst staying at the service was not adequately monitored to ensure they were being supported to achieve their goals. People were not always being supported to have positive outcomes at the service as a result. The provider was not always acting on known issues about the safety of the environment. Whilst staff had training to support people, it was not clear how they were being supported to understand or be competent after their training. People were not supported safely with all aspects of medicines administration as protocols for ‘as and when required’ (PRN) protocols were not in place.
People did not receive person centred care. Care plans were not personalised about how to support people in line with their preferences, likes and dislikes. People were not being supported to understand information in ways that made sense to them. People and their relatives were not being asked to feedback about their care and support. Staff were not consistently supporting people with dignity and respect or to be independent. Staff were not clear what goals and outcomes people wanted at the service and were not supporting them to consistently achieve these. Audits and governance measures were not effective in identifying where improvements may be needed. There had been several changes in senior management at the service which had impacted oversight of risk and the quality-of-care people received.
The service was clean and free from Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) risks for the most part. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service. Some staff knew people well and wanted what was best for them. Some people had positive experiences at the service, including regaining skills and independence and successfully returning home. The covering service manager and wider senior management team reacted positively to our feedback during the inspection. They started implementing improvements based on our findings.
In instances where CQC has decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.
This service has been placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
People's experience of this service
Despite CQC finding that people’s care had some shortfalls in relation to the standards we expect, overall, some people and relatives were satisfied with the care people were receiving. Some relatives were not as happy and satisfied with the care their family members had at the service. Some relatives told us they could not be sure their family member was safe or having good experiences at the service. One relative told us, ‘‘Some of the staff just don’t seem to care enough. They don’t engage with [family member] or chat with them. There is a lack of movement [in relation to rehabilitation] and this can be very frustrating.’’ Another relative said, ‘‘[Staff] do not understand [family members] needs. Since they started using the service, supporting them has not been a priority. [Staff] do not promote independence and as a result they have lost a lot of skills.’’ All relatives we spoke with told us they were not asked for feedback about the service or kept up to date with how their family member was. People were not always supported to have good experiences at the service. They were not effectively included and involved in discussions about their care and support. Their rehabilitation and day to day support was not being effectively monitored. People went for longer periods of time without interaction. However, people told us they were happy using the service, and they felt the staff team were kind. We observed people to be happy and relaxed whilst being supported by the staff team, for the most part. Some relatives gave more positive feedback about the service. One person said, ‘‘It’s a nice place here. [Staff], know what they are doing.’’ A relative told us, ‘‘I am more than happy and would recommend the service.’