CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mill View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staffing, risk management and infection control were not always reliable. Hot water checks had not been completed since July 2023, and some people did not receive support promptly on the first inspection day.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit and no current rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit and no current rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were offered choice and control. People and relatives were involved in care planning, and complaints were handled appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture and quality checks were in place. Managers responded to inspection feedback and introduced further work to look for patterns in accidents and incidents.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Mill View rated Good overall, but inspectors found that safety requires improvement because staffing and some safety checks were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 November and 6 December 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Responsive and well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement. On the first day, staffing pressures meant some people waited for support, including help to go outside and help with a meal. Staffing improved on the second day.
Inspectors also found that hot water checks had not been completed since July 2023. Some infection control arrangements needed improvement, and two bath hoists were faulty. These issues were acted on during or after the inspection. The previous overall rating was Outstanding in 2018, so the overall rating has fallen to Good.
Kind, patient staff
Inspectors saw calm, sensitive interactions. Staff supported people patiently when they needed help to move or after a fall.
“Staff were patient, kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised choices
People were involved in decisions about their routines, care, food and clothing. Care plans gave detailed guidance about individual needs.
“People's care was personalised as staff promoted choice and control.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines records were accurate, staff had training and competency checks, and audits were completed. Some extra detail was added to instructions for medicines given as needed.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received these as prescribed.” from the report
Open management
Managers were open with inspectors and acted quickly on issues found. Quality checks identified areas for improvement.
“The management team were responsive to our feedback and eager to improve the service.” from the report
Complaints handled
People and relatives felt able to raise concerns. The two complaints recorded in 2023 showed appropriate action and responses.
“Both complaints demonstrated appropriate action was taken in response to the issues raised and a response was provided.” from the report
Staffing pressures
seriousOn the first inspection day, some people did not receive support promptly. One person waited to go outside and another missed help with a meal. Staffing improved on the second day.
“There were not always enough staff to consistently meet people's needs.” from the report
Missed hot water checks
needs fixingHot water temperatures had not been checked since July 2023. Checks were completed immediately after inspectors identified the gap, and there was no evidence of harm.
“Hot water temperature checks had not been carried out since July 2023.” from the report
Faulty bathing equipment
needs fixingTwo bath hoists were out of use because of faults. Repairs were completed following the inspection.
“Two bath hoists were not in use due to faults.” from the report
Risk of distress
seriousOne person entered other people's bedrooms without staff knowing where they were. This distressed two people in their bedrooms.
“This caused distress to 2 people in their bedrooms who screamed at the person to get out.” from the report
Infection control gaps
needs fixingSome sluice items were not stored correctly and two communal bathroom soap gel dispensers were empty on the first day. These issues were corrected by the second day.
“On day 1 of our inspection, not all sluice items were consistently stored in red bags.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to make sure staffing is sufficient throughout the day, including busy periods?
- 02How are people's dependency levels reviewed, and how does this affect staffing numbers?
- 03Can you show me that hot water temperature checks are now completed and recorded regularly?
- 04Have both bath hoists been repaired, and what equipment is available if a hoist becomes faulty?
- 05How do staff prevent people from entering other people's bedrooms and causing distress?
This inspection assessed Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected, and ratings for uninspected questions were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 2024 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention, visiting and COVID-19 safety measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well ventilated. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly. They were assured that testing, visiting arrangements, social distancing, admissions and outbreak procedures followed current guidance.
The home also supported contact with families and offered activities and support sessions. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full overall quality rating.
Clean environment and PPE
Inspectors found the home clean and well ventilated, with staff wearing protective equipment correctly.
“The home was clean and well ventilated. Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly.” from the report
Family contact
Visiting arrangements allowed people to keep in touch with family and friends through visits and other forms of contact.
“Visiting arrangements followed government guidance ensuring people kept in contact with family and friends through internal visits as well as regular emails, video and phone calls.” from the report
Activities and wellbeing
Staff involved people in planning activities and offered a varied programme for individuals and groups.
“Staff prioritised people's wellbeing involving them in planning, and participating in, a varied programme of activities and events on an individual and group basis.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 02How do you make sure visiting arrangements continue to follow current guidance?
- 03How often are people using the service, staff and visitors tested, and what happens when there is a positive result?
- 04How would you prevent or manage an infection outbreak in the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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.
Every inspection of Mill View
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Outstandingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- December 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £1,250 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.