Millfield House

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People we spoke with confirmed this and said they were treated with respect, for example always knocking before entering their room. Relationships between staff and people were positive and people said, ‘the staff are amazing,’ and ‘the staff are my family.’ We observed warm, friendly conversations between staff and people treating each other as equals.

Staff knew people people’s histories and interests well. Care plans were person-centred and identified people’s interests and who and what is important to them. Staff had a caring attitude to people and those close to them.

Staff worked well with other professionals and described their support as ‘helpful.’ Health professionals we spoke with described a proactive approach within the service. One said, ‘staff are very supportive and seem to know individual’s very well and provide good care.’

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

Activities were personalised to individual interests. We were told of planned zip wire and fishing trips to support people to realise their ambitions.

People told us of assistive technology supporting their independence such as a tablet device, and adjustable lighting to meet their sensory needs. One person had a referral made by staff to obtain a wheelchair better suited to their needs, and to allow them to access the community. People’s rooms were personalised to their wishes and interests. However the building was not always adapted to individual needs.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

When asked about choices, people were not always satisfied with the meals offered. One person said, ‘not always, no choice.’ One person told us “It’s chilli today and I don't like it. I'll get something in later. “I'm not overly impressed with the food.” Another person said they didn’t have a choice of when they would like to go to bed or get up in the morning. However, other people gave us positive feedback in these areas and told us they had control over choices in their day to day life.

However, we were told of improvements in people’s independence with one person now participating in mealtimes independently with staff support and supporting another to access physio support which allowed them to be more active. There was also clear guidance for how people would be supported with intimate tasks such as personal care to have maximum independence. Staff were seen to support someone with a voice activated television control. Relatives told us, ‘When (relative) moved into Millfield I think they manage well at guiding/putting them in control as far as possible,’ and another said, ‘They try to give my relative as much independence and control.’

The provider listened to people’s needs, views and wishes. However systems were not always in place to ensure people’s needs could be responded to in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff recognised different ways people might communicate discomfort, pain or distress, including both verbal and non-verbal cues. They know how to escalate concerns if they believe this indicates a deterioration in their health and wellbeing. However, staff were not always suitably trained or knowledgeable about people’s needs, so we could not be assured they people would always receive the support they needed when they needed it. There was not always a member of staff available who was trained to give medication, meaning a risk of delays if people needed medication in response to pain or other conditions.

People had access to a buzzer when assistance was required from their room. People told us that staff respond to their needs quickly and we observed a response time of 2 minutes. Others said staff responded well except when they were short of staff.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

We were told, ‘(the manager) is very good at praising and saying, 'well done' and telling you what you're doing well and using your strengths. I feel valued here,’ and ‘I feel very looked after, unlike any job I've ever had.'

Staff said the manager’s door was always open and they felt treated with compassion and understanding when struggling at work. One member of staff told us, ‘(manager) gets to know you as an individual and she gets to know your needs and how to work around them.’

The provider supported staff wellbeing outside of work such as with a free holiday home available to staff, and staff were able to nominate colleague for recognition in the staff newsletter which they told us was very motivating.