• Care Home
  • Care home

Millfield Nursing and Residential Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Cedar Park Drive, Bolsover, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S44 6XP (01246) 825959

Provided and run by:
Indigo Care Services Limited

Assessment report published 7 January 2026

On this page

Well-led

Good

4 December 2025

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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.

Shared direction and culture

Score: 3

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The care home had a welcoming atmosphere. Staff were positive about their work and appeared to be happy to be at the care home. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and listened when they raised concerns or suggestions.

 

Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders

Score: 3

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The registered manager and deputy manager of the service were both qualified nurses. This meant they had the clinical background and experience to provide leadership in the service. Staff told us if they were unsure about anything they felt able to approach both leaders for help and support.

The registered manager and deputy manager completed daily walk arounds of the care home and interacted with the people living at the service, giving them continual opportunity to build relationships of trust. For example, a relative told us, “The manager’s door is always open for you, and they are easy to talk to. The manager walks around the home and knows the name of every resident there. They lead a good team. They are on top of everything. I couldn’t wish for a nicer place.”

Freedom to speak up

Score: 3

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had safeguarding and whistleblowing policies in place which all staff had access to. Staff understood how to raise whistleblowing concerns to the relevant people and organisations.

Staff at the service told us they felt able to speak up if they encountered any problems at the service.

The registered manager investigated concerns raised by staff and documented the action they had taken to effectively resolve the issue. They ensured that any learning from concerns was shared with staff.

Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion

Score: 3

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Governance, management and sustainability

Score: 3

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

There was an effective governance process in place to evaluate and mitigate risks to people using the service. Quality audits were completed, and risk assessments reviewed, on a scheduled basis.

The registered manager used the findings from the quality audits to identify actions needed to reduce risks. For example, maintenance audits had shown some chairs and tables needed replacement. The quality audit document showed this action had been completed within a timely period after being identified as necessary.

The provider used an electronic care planning and medicine recording system. This helped to ensure the registered manager and staff were reminded when medicines or care plan reviews were due.

 

People’s care plans were updated and reviewed regularly. If a person’s needs and goals changed the appropriate updates were made to their care plan and the details were shared with all staff.

 

Partnerships and communities

Score: 3

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider had good working relationships with external health and social care professionals. Input into people’s care from professionals was evident throughout the care plans. Relatives told us they felt assured people using the service had access to GP services,

specialist palliative care team, and district nurses, when required. People were supported to arrange and attend any health and social care appointments they needed.

The service had social and outreach links in the community. For example, they worked closely with the Salvation Army to support people living in the care home who had served in the armed forces. These community connections helped people to maintain links with other people with similar experience.

Learning, improvement and innovation

Score: 3

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider promoted continuous learning and development, through their governance systems, continuous feedback from people and relatives, and regular reviews of people’s individual needs and risks.

There was a continual improvement plan in place at the service. This showed leaders had clear oversight of different areas for improvement across the service and clearly recorded actions taken to make improvements.