CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Miles House - 4 Hentland Close
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Miles House - 4 Hentland Close is rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but some risk and best-interest records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 July 2019. One inspector spoke with two people, five staff members and a visiting healthcare professional. They also reviewed care records, medicines records and management documents.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, respected and well cared for. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs and supported choice, independence and community involvement.
There were some shortfalls. Risk assessments did not always explain how staff should reduce the risk of injury during some personal care. Best-interest decision records did not always show how decisions had been reached. The manager took immediate steps to address both issues.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse or harm.
“People told us that they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw good professional relationships. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and understood their likes, dislikes and individual needs.
“We observed staff throughout the day and found they had formed good professional relationships with the people they were supported.” from the report
Support for independence
Care focused on choice, control and gaining new skills. People were supported to make decisions and become more independent.
“People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
Medicines managed well
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely. Records were checked and kept up to date.
“Medicine records were accurate, complete and up to date.” from the report
Some risk assessments were incomplete
seriousSome risk assessments did not clearly set out the actions needed to prevent injury during parts of intimate personal care. The manager took immediate steps to have the assessment reviewed.
“risk assessments did not adequately detail the actions needed to reduce the risk of injury.” from the report
Best-interest records needed more detail
needs fixingWhere people lacked capacity for a particular decision, records did not always explain how the best-interest decision had been reached. The manager contacted the local authority assessor for a review.
“the documentation did not always show the process taken to arrive at the decision.” from the report
More informal activities could be offered
minorThere were regular planned group activities, but inspectors found that more could have been done to encourage activities outside the rota and develop a person's friendship.
“more could have been done to promote more spontaneity around encouraging activities outside of the planned group activities on the rota.” from the report
- 01How were the risk assessments changed after inspectors raised concerns about injury during intimate personal care?
- 02How do you now record the steps taken when making a best-interest decision for someone who lacks capacity?
- 03How will you support people to develop friendships and take part in activities outside the planned group timetable?
- 04How are medicines records audited, and what happens if a gap or mistake is found?
- 05How will you support my relative to gain new skills and become more independent?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 August 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Miles House - 4 Hentland Close was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with improvements since 2015 but some quality checks still needed extending.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 and 16 January 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines, staff, accident and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas. People were found to be safe, treated kindly and supported by trained staff. Medicines were given as prescribed, care plans were reviewed, and people were supported with food, healthcare, activities and contact with family.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in September 2015. Medicines management, mental capacity assessments and quality checks had improved. However, the registered manager said the auditing system still needed extending in some areas.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and how to manage individual risks.
“People felt safe when they were receiving care and support from staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond warmly to people and protect their privacy and dignity. People were offered choices about their day.
“People were treated kindly and had their privacy and dignity maintained.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received induction, regular and specialist training. Inspectors found staff understood people's individual needs.
“Staff received training to enable them to provide care and support to people.” from the report
Activities and family involvement
People were supported to enjoy activities such as swimming, shopping, baking and arts and crafts. Relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
“People and their relatives were involved in planning the care and support provided.” from the report
Quality checks were not yet complete
needs fixingThe home had introduced audits, but the registered manager said the system needed extending to cover more areas of management oversight.
“The registered manager acknowledged the auditing system in place needed extending in some areas” from the report
- 01Which parts of the quality auditing system still needed extending, and what has been done about this?
- 02How will you assess and support my relative's ability to make decisions, including any best-interest or DoLS arrangements?
- 03How will you meet my relative's specific dietary, healthcare and communication needs?
- 04What activities and community or family contact would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you involve me in reviewing my relative's care plan and responding to any concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection of the home's overall quality and all five key questions; inspectors observed care, spoke with two people and four relatives, and checked records for two people's care. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Miles House - 4 Hentland Close
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Miles House - 4 Hentland Close →
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Miles House - 4 Hentland Close →
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.