You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 18 May 2018

We undertook an announced inspection of Millcroft on 29 March 2018.

Millcroft provides extra care housing for up to 40 older people. The office of the domiciliary care agency Millcroft is based within the building. The agency provides 24 hour person centred care and support to people living within Millcroft, who have been assessed as requiring extra care or support in their lives. On the day of our inspection 14 people were receiving a personal care service.

This service provides care [and support] to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is [bought] [or] [rented], and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care service.

There was not a registered manager in post. 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 current manager was registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

People were safe living in the service. There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff had time to spend with people. Risk assessments were carried out and promoted positive risk taking which enabled people to live their lives as they chose. However, not all risk assessments were accurate, up to date or contained sufficient information for staff to support people safely. The service was aware of these concerns and action was being taken. People received their medicines safely.

People received effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice. People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with people's GPs to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.

The service provided support in a caring way. Staff supported people with kindness and compassion. Staff respected people as individuals and treated them with dignity. People were involved in decisions about their care needs and the support they required to meet those needs.

People had access to information about their care and staff supported people in their preferred method of communication. Staff also provided people with emotional support.

The service was responsive to people's needs and ensured people were supported in a personalised way. People's changing needs were responded to promptly and their views were sought and acted upon.

The service was well led by a manager who promoted a culture that put people at the forefront of all the service did. The manager was registering with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). There was a positive culture that valued people, relatives and staff and promoted a caring ethos. The service had links with the local community.

The manager monitored the quality of the service and strived for continuous improvement. There was a clear vision to deliver high quality care and support and promote a positive culture that was person-centred, open and inclusive. This achieved positive outcomes for people and contributed to their quality of life. The manager was robustly supported by the associate head of CQC compliance and provider.

Inspection areas



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people�s needs.

People told us they felt safe. Staff knew how to identify and raise concerns.

Risks to people were managed and assessments were in place to manage the risk and keep people safe.

People received their medicines as prescribed.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs were assessed and care planned to ensure it met their needs.

People were supported by staff who had the training and knowledge to support them effectively.

Staff received support and supervision and had access to further training and development.

Staff had been trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood and applied its principles.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind, compassionate and respectful and treated people and their relatives with dignity and respect.

Staff gave people the time to express their wishes and respected the decisions they made. People were involved in their care.

The service promoted people�s independence.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans were personalised and gave clear guidance for staff on how to support people.

People knew how to raise concerns and were confident action would be taken.

People were treated as individuals and their diverse needs respected.



Updated 18 May 2018

The service was well-led.

The service had systems in place to monitor the quality of service.

The service shared learning and looked for continuous improvement.

There was a whistle blowing policy in place that was available to staff around the service. Staff knew how to raise concerns.