Mill House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

The service was not always caring and has moved to requires improvement in this key question. People were supported in a caring way by staff who knew them well. However, people’s needs were not always responded to or reviewed to ensure they received care and support in line with their individual preferences.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives were happy with the staff who supported them and the care they received. One person said, “It’s really good here. You get used to all the carers. They are all nice.” A relative said, “The carers are family to us.”

Staff knew people’s individual preferences and what was important to them. They gave us examples and told us how they would share this information amongst themselves. They could tell us how they supported people to promote their privacy and dignity. The manager told us they treated people with kindness and respect and had introduced a spot check on personal care

Feedback from the local authority showed progress was being made with an action plan they had given the service to work on. However, the action plan showed there were still areas that needed improving. For example, they acknowledged improvements with the care people received however stated that the home would need to make sure that there is more resident and family involvement.

On the whole staff were observed to be kind and caring, they checked on people and used the information they knew about people to engage them in conversation. However, on 1 occasion a person was not supported when they needed a tissue as staff were busy. We also saw this person was repeatedly asked to sit down and remain in communal areas.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We received mixed feedback from people. One person told us, “I would really like a bath, but there’s no bath I can use, I don’t really like a shower. I would love a bath.” Another person told us, “If I need the doctor I just ask and they send for the doctor.” Relatives raised no concerns and felt the home was responsive.

Staff knew people well including how they communicated. They were able to describe when people maybe distressed or in discomfort. The manager told us they responded to immediate risk and ensured when something changed care plans were updated and staff had this information. When we discussed concerns with them regarding the environment and people not having a bath, they told us this was because the provider was not investing in the home.

When people were in the communal areas staff mostly responded when people required support and were responsive to their needs. For example, when people wanted a drink. However, as people had to remain in the lounge we could not be assured people’s needs were fully responded to as they were restricted to this area.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.