Mill House

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.

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 received person-centred care which met their needs and reflected their preferences. People told us they were happy with the support they received. The provider had acted on previous feedback from people regarding the décor of the service and had worked with people to develop a new colour scheme and artwork for the dementia specialist floor. We asked people about the activities they took part in. They told us, "There's activities on the board, they have sing songs sometimes." A relative told us, "They have a lot of activities."

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.

The service understood the need to provide continuity of staff. The regional director told us, “When we use temporary staff we try to use the same ones. In terms of our teams, the nurses tend to work on the same floors. Same with the care team. We manage the rota properly, minimum of 8 weeks in advance. We can then plan around annual leave.” We found no concerns around professional boundaries.

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

People were given information about the service and their care. People told us they were well informed by staff. Staff undertook specialist dementia training to make sure they knew how to enhance communication with people. We saw staff speaking slowly and clearly with people and allowing them time to process what had been said.

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.

The provider had systems to listen to people and involve them in decisions about their care and the service. People had regular meetings with staff and each other so they could share their views. There was a clear complaints procedure. People told us they knew how to make a complaint and what to do if they wanted to discuss their care. They explained their views were respected and concerns were appropriately dealt with. Minutes of relative’s meetings were emailed to those who could not attend.

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

Staff supported people to access services within and outside of the service. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and organised for external professionals to visit the service when people were unable or unwilling to attend healthcare services. An activity room with a garden was accessible to everyone and included a sheltered area. We observed people using the activity room during our assessment. There were also several well-equipped lounges for people to use and for visiting relatives.

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.

The provider had systems to protect people’s human rights and made sure their needs were met. Staff respected people’s independence, choice and privacy when providing support with personal care. The quality assurance manager supported with coaching staff around choice and ensuring they offered choice to people who had dementia. This included when they made requests, for example to go for a walk, and how to not dismiss people's requests. The provider employed people from different parts of the world and found there were instances where additional support had to be offered to staff from overseas. For example, concerns had arisen where behaviour deemed as culturally acceptable was seen as disrespectful to others from a different country or culture. The Regional Manager told us, “Sometimes the way staff spoke to leaders was disrespectful, and things got lost in translation, but these issues have been addressed.”

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.

The provider helped people to plan for the future. People met with staff and managers to discuss personal goals and objectives. These were regularly reviewed.