CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mill House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some temporary untidiness during kitchen refurbishment.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 August 2018. Two inspectors reviewed records, staffing, medicines and quality checks. They spoke with four people, one relative, staff, a manager and a professional.
The home supported 20 people with mental health needs, providing care and support but not nursing care. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were given as prescribed and there were enough suitably trained staff.
People were involved in decisions about their care and were treated with kindness and respect. Care plans reflected individual needs, choices and interests. The home had systems for complaints, staff support and checking the quality of care.
All five areas were rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection on 13 September 2015. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns and no breaches of regulations were reported.
Individual safety planning
Risks were recorded in people's care plans and staff knew how to support each person, including when they became distressed.
“We saw the risk assessments were written with regard to the specific needs of each individual.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People said staff listened, respected their choices and protected their privacy and dignity.
“The staff never barge in they always ask or knock to come into my room.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and interests. Staff supported people to maintain and develop independent living skills.
“Each person had a care plan which had been written from an assessment of their needs.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received induction, regular training and supervision relevant to the needs of people living in the home.
“Staff were provided with supervision and regular training.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager used audits, meetings and feedback to check the service and identify improvements.
“There were systems in place to monitor the review the quality and effectiveness of the service.” from the report
Temporary untidiness
minorKitchen refurbishment meant items were stored in communal rooms. People said this made some communal areas untidy, although they expected the work to improve the home.
“The service was undergoing a refurbishment of the kitchen which meant that items were stored in communal rooms.” from the report
Storage for personal possessions
minorOne person was unhappy that their possessions had outgrown their room. Staff were working with the person on storage arrangements elsewhere in the home.
“One person told us that they were unhappy with the storage of some of their personal possessions as their personal possessions had outgrown the size of their room.” from the report
- 01Has the kitchen refurbishment been completed, and are communal areas now clear and tidy?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's care plan and risk assessments remain up to date as their needs change?
- 03How are medicines, including medicines given only when needed, checked and recorded?
- 04How will you support my relative to develop independence and pursue their hobbies and interests?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection in 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 September 2018 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2010.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.