Archived: Mill View

Updated 27 September 2018

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 is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 18 April 2018. The inspection was unannounced and was carried out by two adult social care inspectors and two experts by experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included notifications from the provider and speaking with the local authority contracts and safeguarding teams.

The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR).The PIR is a document which gives the provider the opportunity to tell us about the service. We used information the provider sent us in the PIR. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spent time observing care in the lounges and dining rooms and used the Short Observational Framework for Inspections (SOFI), which is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people using the service who could not express their views to us. We looked around some areas of the building including bedrooms, bathrooms and communal areas. We also spent time looking at records, which included four people’s care records, three staff recruitment files and records relating to the management of the service.

We spoke with 12 people who used the service, five relatives, one visitor, six care workers, the head chef, the administrator, two district nurses, the hairdresser, the deputy manager, the registered manager and the district manager.

Updated 27 September 2018

This inspection took place on 18 April 2018 and was unannounced. There were 46 people using the service.

Mill View is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection. Mill View can accommodate up to 50 older people/people living with dementia in a two storey, purpose built home.

At the last inspection in November 2016 we did not identify any breaches of Regulation, but the service was rated ‘Requires improvement,’ because we needed to see the improvements which had been made could be sustained and developed over time.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

The service was exceptionally well led. The service benefitted from strong leadership. The registered manager was passionate about providing person centred care and this was reflected in every aspect of the service. The registered manager, supported by the senior management team, was continuously looking at ways to improve the service for the benefit of the people who lived there. The registered manager had developed positive working relationships with staff and relevant stakeholders. The registered manager motivated the staff team with regular meetings, formal supervisions and training.

The registered manager understood their responsibilities and worked with people who used the service, relatives, staff and the provider to improve the quality and safety of care that was provided. Quality assurance procedures and a programme of audits were effective in driving continual improvements to the quality of service.

People received an outstanding responsive service. People who used the service received highly personalised care from staff who knew their background, interests and hobbies. The registered manager listened to people who used the service and about what they wanted. A shop, cinema, American style diner had all been created to provide people with interesting and stimulating facilities. Group and individual activities were on offer to keep people occupied. People were encouraged to pass on any concerns so action could be taken to improve the service they received. Excellent links had been made with local groups of young people who were regular and popular visitors.

People were safe because there were systems and processes in place to protect them. Staff, as a result of their training in safeguarding people, understood the different types of harm and to who they could report this to. Risk assessments were in place and these promoted people's safety such as when mobilising around the service. Incidents such as falls were used as an opportunity for learning and to help drive improvements. Medicines were administered, recorded and stored in a safe manner and all staff who administered medicines had received suitable training to do this.

Staff were subject to checks on their suitability before they were offered employment. Enough staff were employed to ensure that people’s needs could be met in a timely manner. Staff were aware of infection control measures and the service was clean and well maintained.

People received an effective service and were supported by staff who had received appropriate training. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible: the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff knew when people needed support and also when to respect people's independence. Staff were supported in their role and they knew what standard of care was expected. People were enabled to access healthcare services. People's nutritional needs were met and meals at the home were excellent, offering choice and variety.

People received good care. We received very positive comments from a range of people about the caring nature of the service. People received high quality care from staff who had the time to spend with them. Staff showed kindness to people in everything they did by offering friendly support around their individual needs. People were at the heart of the service as staff put people first and foremost in everything.

People's care plans contained relevant personalised information and these gave staff the information they needed in order to meet people's needs. Staff used people's life histories to help them understand what was important to each and every person. Staff understood it was important for people to maintain their independence and they protected people’s privacy and dignity.