CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Mill House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but leadership and some care records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited without notice on 6 and 7 April 2022. They spoke with relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were treated kindly, supported to receive medicines, given suitable food and drink, and offered many activities.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. There was no registered manager during the visit, the management team was changing, and some risk assessments, care records and medicines records were not fully up to date. The provider had identified these issues and was working on an improvement plan.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. Relatives also gave positive feedback about the care.
“We observed staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Training and support
Staff spoke positively about their training and supervision. Relatives said staff were well trained and competent.
“One staff member told us that they receive: "Very good training" and regular supervisions.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were supported with their nutrition, hydration and dietary needs. Staff monitored health and arranged access to healthcare professionals.
“People were supported to eat and drink safely and staff were aware of this information.” from the report
Care records and risk plans
needs fixingSome risk management plans did not contain up-to-date information about people's eating and drinking needs. The home took immediate action to review them, but the improvement work was not yet complete.
“However, some people's risk management plans did not have up to date information, for example in relation to their eating and drinking.” from the report
Changing management
needs fixingThere was no registered manager during the inspection and the management team was handing over to a newly appointed manager. Inspectors could not yet judge whether the improvement plan would lead to lasting improvements.
“At the time of the inspection the service did not have a registered manager.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager completed the CQC registration process?
- 02What has been updated in people's choking, eating and drinking risk assessments since the inspection?
- 03What changes were made to medicine administration records, and how are these now checked?
- 04How is the service tracking the improvement plan and checking that changes are lasting?
- 05How are staffing levels and staff morale being monitored while recruitment continues?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the overall rating remained Good from 2019, while the well-led rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 2022 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, July 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found varied feedback about care delays and no registered manager was in post.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 20 June 2019. Inspectors looked only at whether the home was responsive and well-led. The other areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used.
The overall rating remained Good, as it was at the previous inspection. People had activities in the home and the local community, support to keep in touch with relatives, and arrangements for complaints and end of life care.
Some people reported delays in receiving care. Inspectors did not see delays during their visit, and the provider was using more staff hours than its staffing calculation suggested. Inspectors recommended asking people and their representatives about their experience of receiving care.
There was no registered manager in post. An interim manager was working while the provider recruited, and the provider knew a new manager's registration application needed to be submitted as a priority. Quality checks were in place and the well-led rating remained Good.
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities at the home and in the local community. The home also checked whether activities were suitable and enjoyable.
“People were able to engage in a range of activities both at Mill House and in the local community.” from the report
Complaints were acted on
Complaints were recorded and investigated. Changes were made after complaints, including changes to medicines, meals and breakfast-time care.
“Records showed, complaints were recorded, investigated, meetings held with complainants and responses provided including a follow-up on any issues found.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used checks and clinical information to look for patterns in accidents, complaints, falls and infections, and to identify actions.
“People benefitted from quality assurance checks which ensured a consistent service was being provided.” from the report
Possible delays in care
needs fixingPeople gave mixed feedback about whether staff met their needs quickly enough. Inspectors did not see delays during the visit, but the provider agreed to audit call-bell response times.
“We received mixed feedback about the responsiveness of staff in meeting people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. An interim manager was in place while recruitment took place, and the provider needed to submit a new registration application as a priority.
“At the time of our inspection visit there was no registered manager in post and the provider was actively recruiting a new manager.” from the report
- 01How long do people usually wait for help after using the call bell, and what has the response-time audit shown?
- 02Who is managing the home now, and when will the new registered manager application be submitted?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels are enough when staff are absent at short notice?
- 04How do you ask people and their representatives whether care is being provided promptly?
- 05How are activities reviewed to make sure people enjoy them and can take part at weekends?
This was a focused inspection of Responsive and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 July 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.
Every inspection of Mill House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 July 2013.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.