Archived: Milton Village

Updated 9 May 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, looked at the overall quality of the service, and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 8 and 9 November 2016. We gave the registered manager 24 hours’ notice of our visit to make sure staff we needed to speak with would be available. One inspector carried out the inspection.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We read the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed information we held about the service, including previous inspection reports and notifications sent to us by the provider. Notifications are information about specific important events the service is legally required to send to us.

We spoke with four people living at Milton Village and one relative, an external social care professional, the registered manager, the recently appointed manager (who was in the process of applying to become the new registered manager) and five members of staff including the newly appointed auditor. We looked at five care plans and five staff files.

Updated 9 May 2017

The inspection of Milton Village took place on the 8 and 9 of November 2016. We gave 24 hours’ notice of the inspection to make sure the people we needed to speak with were available.

Sevacare (UK) Limited provides personal care services for people living in their own flats within an extra care housing scheme at Milton Village. Geographically, the scheme operates over three separate, purpose built buildings Osprey, Brent and Crane Court that are within walking distance of each other. Each building has three floors with lift and stair access. There are some communal lounge areas within each building.

Milton Village is one of four extra care housing schemes that operates within Portsmouth. The management of the buildings and facilities is not the responsibility of Sevacare (UK) Limited but the provider has an office located within one of the buildings; Brent Court, from which the service is managed. At the time of our inspection there were 40 people receiving care and support at Milton Village.

There was 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 to meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The current registered manager had applied to de-register from the service and another member of staff had applied to become registered manager. The two staff members were already working together at Milton Village to ensure a seamless transition for the service.

People told us they felt safe living at Milton Village. Staff knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to protect people from avoidable harm. The provider ensured there were robust systems in place for staff to report their concerns. The provider had processes in place to identify risks to people’s health and wellbeing. However, once identified, the risk assessments to manage and reduce those risks were not always completed sufficiently.

Safe recruitment practices were followed to ensure appointed staff were suitable to work within a care setting. There were enough staff to care for people safely. There had been medication errors at the service, but systems had been put in place to ensure improvement. Medicines were handled safely.

Staff received comprehensive training to ensure they acquired and maintained the appropriate skills to enable to them to carry out their roles effectively. They were supported by the provider with regular supervision and appraisal. Staff gave good examples of seeking consent from people when providing personal care and support.

Staff knew people well and provided compassionate care according to people’s needs and wishes. People were encouraged to contribute to discussions regarding their care plans. However, care records lacked personalisation and did not reflect a person’s wishes or preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed to accommodate people’s changing needs.

Complaints were investigated and resolved locally where possible, but were not always dealt with according to policy.

People and staff spoke positively of the management team. Regular team meetings were held in which staff could raise any concerns they might have.

Records management was not always consistent, particularly in relation to risk assessment and individualised care planning, this had already been identified by the registered manager.

Quality audits were being undertaken to ensure the continual improvement of the service. The provider sought feedback from people and staff to ensure quality service provision.

We made a recommendation in relation to maintaining consistent and up-to-date records with regard to risk assessments, individualised care planning and the recording of complaints.