Millers Grange

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 remained Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People had their own care plan which documented their individual likes, dislikes and care needs. The service used a ‘resident of the day’ process to keep people’s care records up to date.

Staff were aware of people’s interests and what was important to them. For example, one person liked to have their personal items next to them when eating, we observed staff making sure the person’s items were next to them while they were sat at the dining table.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us they were supported to access the community if they wanted to. There were photographs of people going shopping, visiting the garden centre, attending a fate, going on a boat trip and other activities outside of the home. One person said, “We’ve been to Charlbury garden centre and into Witney town centre.” A staff member told us, “The nursery from the school come every Friday. They like the magic table and sitting in the café colouring with residents.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care plans contained guidance on their preferred way of communicating. For example, using short sentences and allowing time to process the question.

The provider offered information in a range of different formats including large print and through the use of technology, such as hearing loops.

The provider created a newsletter which included information about activities, events, staff, and meetings. The provider held regular relative meetings where information such as staffing, maintenance work and improvements were shared.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People were actively encouraged to share their views. The provider had introduced a ‘you said we did’ feedback book which was accessible for people to write feedback in.

Complaints had been recorded and letters sent once investigations were completed. The registered manager kept records of outcomes and information on whether complaints were shared with any other agencies such as the local authority. The provider maintained openness and transparency regarding complaints received and used these insights to drive continuous improvement.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Facilities within the home were designed to meet people’s mobility, communication, and sensory needs, ensuring fair access and reducing inequalities.

People from both floors were supported to access all areas of the home, throughout the day we saw people supported to access the external grounds and coffee lounge.

Bathrooms were adapted and staff provided people with choice if they preferred a bath instead of a shower. People had access to GP appointments, as well as a hairdresser, and could access the garden with support if they needed it.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People did not experience discrimination or inequality in the delivery of their care. There were clear policies in place to promote equality and meet diverse needs.

Staff received training in equality, diversity, and inclusion. Care planning processes considered a range of individual factors, including age, gender, religion, disability, and other protected characteristics.

People were supported 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.

End of life discussions took place and care plans were created to provide guidance to staff. Care plans detailed whether a “Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation” (DNACPR) was in place, and this information was readily accessible in the event of a medical emergency.

The provider had an end of life champion, who supported staff who were less experienced in providing end of life care.