Mill House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 22 people. There were 22 people living in the home when we visited. Accommodation is provided over two floors. There are communal toilets and bathrooms for people to use. All bedrooms are for single occupancy with some having ensuite facilities. There are communal areas, including lounge areas, a dining room and a large garden area for people and their guests to use.
The last inspection took place on 4 September 2013 during which we found that Regulation 10 HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 regarding the maintenance of the premises was not being met. The provider sent us an action plan informing us that improvements would be completed by 1 July 2014. At this inspection on 23 September 2015 we found that the required improvements had been made.
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 for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures to ensure that people were protected from harm. Staff were also aware of whistleblowing procedures and would have no hesitation in reporting any concerns. People received their medication as prescribed.
There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff employed at the home. The provider’s recruitment process ensured that only staff who had been deemed suitable to work with people at the home were employed following satisfactory recruitment checks had been completed.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that the registered manager and all staff were knowledgeable about when a request for a DoLS application would be required. The registered manager told us that there were no applications currently submitted to the relevant local authorities but they aware of who to contact should they need to submit an application.
Staff respected and maintained people’s privacy at all times. People were provided with care and support as required and people did not have to wait for long periods of time before having their care needs met. This meant that people’s dignity was respected and that their care needs were met in a timely manner.
People’s assessed care and support needs were planned and met by staff who had a good understanding of how and when to provide people’s care whilst respecting their independence. Care records were detailed and up to date so that staff were provided with guidelines to care for people in the right way.
People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. These included appointments with a range of healthcare professionals. Risk assessments were in place to ensure that people could be safely supported at all times.
People were provided with a varied menu and had a range of meals and healthy options to choose from. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks and snacks made available to people at all times.
People’s care was provided by staff in a caring, kind and compassionate way. People’s hobbies and interests had been identified and were supported by staff in a way which involved people to prevent them from becoming socially isolated.
The home had a complaints procedure available for people and their relatives to use and all staff were aware of the procedure. Prompt action was taken to address people’s concerns and prevent any potential for recurrence.
There was an open culture within the home and people were able to talk and raise any issues with the staff. People were provided with several ways that they could comment on the quality of their care. This included regular contact with the provider, registered manager, staff and completing annual quality assurance surveys. The provider sought the views of healthcare professionals as a way of identifying improvement. Where people suggested improvements, these had been implemented promptly and to the person’s satisfaction.