You are here

Archived: Mill House Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 4 February 2016

We inspected this service on 5 January 2016. This was an unannounced inspection.

Mill House is a care home providing nursing care for up to 35 people. At the time of our visit there were 33 people living at the service.

At a comprehensive inspection of this service in January 2015 we identified four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These were in relation to Safeguarding service users, the provision of person centred care, acting on and managing complaints, maintaining accurate care records and monitoring the quality of the service people received. The provider sent us an action plan to tell us how they would ensure the service met the legal requirements of the regulations. At this inspection in January 2016 we found the required actions had been taken.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was supported by an area manager.

People, their relatives and staff felt the service was well led. The registered manager and management team sought feedback from people and their relatives and was continually striving to improve the quality of the service. There was a detailed plan of further changes and improvements that were going to be made to the service.

Staff were clear about the action they would take to keep people safe from abuse. People and staff were confident they could raise any concerns and these would be dealt with.

People felt supported by competent staff. Staff were motivated to improve the quality of care and benefitted from regular supervision, team meetings and training to help them meet the needs of the people they were caring for.

There was a calm, warm and friendly atmosphere at the service. People told us staff were kind and caring and we observed many interactions to support this. However, some improvements were required to ensure people were always spoken about and treated in a dignified and respectable way.

People were supported to maintain their health and were referred for specialist advice as required. People were provided with person-centred care which encouraged choice and independence. Staff knew people and understood their individual preferences. Risks to people’s health were identified and plans were in place to manage the risks.

People were supported to have their nutritional needs met. People were complementary about the food and were given choice and variety. The menu was flexible to ensure people were able to have what they wanted at each mealtime.

Medicines were administered in a safe way. However, people did not always have protocols in place to provide advice and guidance to staff on when to administer the medicine. One medicine was not stored in line with safe storage guidance.

There was enough staff to meet peoples needs. However, call bells were not always answered promptly.

People told us and the service they enjoyed the activities on offer but would like more things to do. The service had acted on this feedback and had increased the activity budget and were in the process of employing more activity staff.

The provider, registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions or who may be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.

We have recommended the provider consult national guidance on Medicine Management and treating people with dignity and respect.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 4 February 2016

Improvements were required to ensure people were safe.

Medicines were not always stored in a safe way. People did not always have protocols in place to inform staff when as required medicines should be given.

There were enough care staff to meet people needs. However, call bells were not always answered in a timely way.

Staff identified and managed the risks of people's care.

Staff understood their responsibilities around safeguarding and knew how to raise concerns.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 February 2016

The service was effective.

People’s nutritional needs were met.

People were supported to access other health and social care professionals to ensure their needs were met.

Staff felt supported and received a range of training to help them meet the needs of the people they were caring for.

People were supported by staff who understood their responsibilities relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 4 February 2016

The service was not always caring.

People were spoken to in a respectful way. However, staff did not always refer to people in a respectful way.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. However, improvements were required to ensure people were always treated in a respectful way.

People were supported in a personalised way. Their choices and preferences were respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 February 2016

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

People were involved in the planning of their care. Care records contained detailed information about people’s health and care needs.

People knew how to make a complaint if required.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 February 2016

The service was well led.

There was a positive and open culture where people, relatives and staff felt able to raise any concerns or suggestions for improvements to the service.

The quality of the service was regularly reviewed. The management team had taken action to improve the service where shortfalls had been found.

The registered manager and the management team continually strived to improve the quality of service offered to people.