Mill Garth

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. Staff respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk inspection and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients evidenced that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it. Staff told us that they worked hard to build therapeutic relationships with patients.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. Patients spoke highly of the service. They said staff were caring and respectful towards them. One patient said: “The staff are caring and supportive, and they are non-judgemental and have good attitudes”. Another patient told us: “Staff are lovely, I like them all”.

We observed 2 clinical reviews and saw that the consultant psychiatrist showed kindness, compassion, and dignity when engaging with patients. They took time to listen to the patient’s views, involved them in discussions about their care, and explained information in a clear and supportive way

Staff offered patients a private space to talk when required. There was a policy in place around therapeutic engagement and observations. All rooms had privacy blinds that patients could operate from within their room.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. The service had links with external organisations and services within the local community.

Staff we spoke with understood the individual needs of patients, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs and tailored care and treatment to meet these needs.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. No staff we spoke with told us they had observed this behaviour taking place.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Patients said staff were respectful and understood their individual needs. We observed staff giving reassurance to patients when they needed it.

The service made adjustments for disabled patients. All bedrooms had accessible bathrooms and managers confirmed they assessed patients’ physical health needs prior to admissions to ensure identified needs could be safely met.

Staff supported patients to make choices about their care and future plans. They offered patients discharge and orientation visits to help prepare them for transitions, with staff providing additional support where required.

Managers described how the care delivered, and environment within one of the bespoke therapeutic placements had been developed in co-production with a patient to meet their individual needs.

There were noticeboards on display to ensure patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, their rights, how to complain, and how to contact CQC.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had easy access to interpreters and/or signers. Managers gave examples of how the service had utilised interpreter services to support patients where required. Managers confirmed that communication needs were identified prior to admission.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. One patient attended church regularly.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care records evidenced that staff prompted patients’ independence by supporting them to develop activities of daily living skills and achieve their rehabilitation goals. Care plans were centered on increasing independence, building confidence, accessing leave, and engaging in ward and community-based activities.

Patients told us that staff involved them in care planning. Patients felt involved in their care and said they had a voice within the service. Several patients spoke positively about their planned transitions to living in the community.

Staff held regular community meetings to ensure they understood and could act on individual concerns.

Staff supported patients to maintain relationships and networks that were important to them. They supported patients' access to their friends and family during their stay.

The service 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.

Care records evidenced that staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, and care planned for these accordingly.

Staff used daily handovers and meetings to identify and respond to changing risks to, or posed by, patients.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened.

Patients told us there were sufficient staff to provide support to them when they needed it.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported and valued. They were positive about working for the provider and spoke with pride about their team.

Managers told us some staff had concerns about the current low occupancy levels. They said they addressed these through regular one-to-one meetings, supervision and team meetings, and kept staff informed about service developments. Staff we spoke with confirmed they received regular updates.

The most recent staff survey, completed in April 2026, evidenced an average positive response rate of 71%. Only 3 of the 60 survey questions received less than 50% positive responses. 2 related to pay and benefits, and 1 related to the visibility of regional leaders. Overall, 73% of staff said they were proud to work for the organisation and 88% said they were motivated to do their best work. Managers had developed an action plan in response to the staff survey.

Staff had access to occupational health services to support their physical and emotional wellbeing. Following incidents, managers carried out debriefs and contacted staff individually to check whether they required additional support.

Managers took steps to promote staff safety by providing training in breakaway and conflict management, ensuring staff had access to relevant risk information before escorting patients on Section 17 leave, and issuing personal alarm fobs to all staff.

Survey results also evidenced that 80% of staff felt success was recognised within the service and 82% said their work gave them a sense of accomplishment. Leaders recognised staff contributions through a staff awards scheme, where colleagues could nominate each other for good practice and receive awards and vouchers.

Leaders had introduced team development away days to strengthen team working and support the development of a positive organisational culture. At the time of the inspection, 2 away days had been completed.

Managers supported staff development through regular appraisals, weekly coaching sessions and discussions about career aspirations. They also described succession planning processes, identifying staff with leadership potential and supporting them to develop the skills and experience needed for future management roles.