Mill View Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

From reviewing people’s care records, it was not clear if or how people or their relatives had been involved in the care planning process, and if they had, where this was documented. Neither people nor relatives we spoke with could recall seeing the care plan. Comments included, “I have never seen my wife’s care plan” and “I have never seen [relatives] care plan. I provided lots of information about their life, likes and dislikes when they were admitted, as I wanted staff to know about them as an individual. They [provider] did not ask me to do this.”

We identified a number of inconsistencies and contradictory information in some of the care records we reviewed during the assessment. For example, one person stated they could walk unsupported and did not use any aids in one section. However, in another section, stated they required support of 1 carer with all mobility and were unable to walk independently. In other sections we also found reference to them requiring a Zimmer frame and a wheelchair. Another person’s skin integrity care plan stated there was no history of pressure sores and they didn’t currently have any pressure sores, though were at high risk of these. This person’s care records also included a separate care plan for the several pressure sores they currently had. We found care interventions were not always completed consistently, this included regular checks of people’s wellbeing and repositioning. Although these checks were completed, they were not done as frequently as specified in peoples care records. Not all care records reviewed contained inconsistent or contradictory information. We found some to be clear, detailed, with good information about how the person wanted to be supported.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Resident and relative meetings were held quarterly, with meeting minutes emailed out afterwards. These allowed for people and their family to receive information from the provider about the home and any updates or changes, as well as provide their own opinions about the care and support provided. We asked people and relatives about the meetings, comments included, “There are meetings but I never attend them, they are every 3 months” and “I’ve been to residents meetings and many of us relatives have said care would be better if they had more staff. The lack of activities has been raised many times, but no action seems to happen.”

We reviewed meeting minutes, dated October 2024 and January 2025. Each meeting started with a review of the last meeting and any actions, and ended with the setting of new actions. We noted issues with activity provision had been raised and relatives informed 2 people had been offered the role of activity coordinator. These staff were still to commence the role. We also noted the provider had discussed relatives volunteering to help with activities and gardening tasks, which relatives had not responded positively to. Relatives had asked if a representative from the provider could attend the meetings, so concerns around investment in the home, staffing and management could be discussed directly with them. The provider told us during the assessment, they intended to attend the next meeting.

Alongside the meeting minutes as a record or discussion and actions, the provider used a ‘You said.. We did..’ board to detail what changes had been made based on feedback received. Recent changes included the use of name badges for all staff, and commencement of a refurbishment process across the home. The provider used the ‘resident of the day’ process, as another way to gather feedback. This process involved a full review of each person’s care, which included seeking the views of people and their relatives. A document was used to evidence this had been done.

We found no evidence surveys or questionnaires were used to gather people’s views or opinions about the home and care provided, to supplement the other processes in place. People were encouraged to provide feedback via a care home review website, but nothing was in place internally.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff and leaders listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, and made efforts to tailor their care accordingly. However, people’s lived experience was not always in line with expectations, or as per their care plan. For example, people’s social and recreational needs were not being met due to a lack of activities within the home. Records indicated people’s care needs were not met consistently, whether this be bathing, oral care or being supported to change position.

The provider had clear policies to help staff and leaders understand, identify and reduce health or care inequalities. Overall, people’s individual communication needs were met, with information available in a range of formats. For one person for whom English was not their first language, the provider had purchased a communication / phrase book, which translated words from the person’s language into English. This was to be used by the care staff to help improve communication and meeting of this person’s needs.

People were offered the opportunity to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. However, where they had done so, documentation was not always accurate.

Where people had chosen to discuss this, care records contained some information about their end of life wishes, such as where they wished to be, who they wanted present and how their religious or spiritual needs should be met. We noted information was recorded on 2 different documents, an advanced care plan and a death and dying care plan. However, we noted one person’s death and dying care plan stated they did not have a ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ order in place, which was incorrect. This could have resulted in unwanted attempts to resuscitate them being made, if this care plan alone was used for guidance. Another person’s care plan stated staff should respect the person’s death and dying wishes, before later stating these had yet to be discussed.