CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Millbrow Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Millbrow Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were being followed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 04 November 2020. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found safe visiting arrangements, including limits on visitors, full personal protective equipment for visits, and special arrangements for people receiving end of life care. The home used social distancing measures, testing, safe admission procedures and 14-day isolation for new residents.
Inspectors said staff used protective equipment safely, supplies were maintained, and infection control guidance was visible. They were assured that the home could prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives findings about infection control, but it does not provide a new overall quality rating.
Safe visiting
Visits were limited and managed with protective equipment. Special arrangements were made for end of life care and where visits were in a person's best interests.
“There were safe measures in place to facilitate visits for people receiving end of life care” from the report
Protective equipment
The home had enough protective equipment and staff used and disposed of it correctly.
“Stocks of the right standard of personal protective equipment (PPE) were well maintained and staff used and disposed of it correctly.” from the report
Safe admissions
New residents had virtual assessments, needed evidence of a negative COVID-19 test and self-isolated for 14 days after moving in.
“People were only admitted following evidence of a negative COVID-19 test.” from the report
Infection control systems
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage outbreaks, and that its infection control policy was up to date.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since the inspection on 04 November 2020?
- 02How do you now test residents and staff for infections?
- 03What happens if a new resident has symptoms or tests positive before admission?
- 04How do you support residents to keep in contact with family and friends?
- 05What are the home's current arrangements for end of life visits?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 2020 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 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but medicines, building safety and management checks were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced, one-day inspection on 27 January 2020. Inspectors reviewed care and medicines records, observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and gathered information from professionals and the local authority.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found staff were kind and respectful, people received personalised care, healthcare needs were supported, and activities and communication were adapted to people's needs.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Medicines were not always stored or recorded safely. Some fire doors and locked doors created risks, and management checks had not found these problems. The provider acted immediately and completed the necessary actions by the end of the inspection.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, as it had been at the previous inspection. The home had been rated Requires Improvement for the last two consecutive inspections. Staffing had improved and was no longer in breach, while breaches remained for safe care and treatment and good governance.
Kind staff
Inspectors found positive relationships between staff and people. Relatives also spoke positively about staff and felt welcome when visiting.
“Staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff received regular supervision, appraisal and competency checks. The home had improved enough that staffing was no longer in breach.
“Staff received regular supervision and appraisal to support their developmental needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's needs, preferences, life history and cultural and spiritual requirements. Plans were reviewed regularly.
“Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained accurate and reflected people's needs.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home worked with health and social care professionals, and inspectors found people's healthcare needs were addressed in a timely way.
“People's healthcare needs were addressed in a timely and effective manner.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousThere were gaps and errors in medicine records. Some creams and lotions were not securely stored, and two medicines were not kept in a refrigerator when required. The provider corrected the identified issues during the inspection, but this was still a legal breach.
“Medicines were not consistently managed in accordance with best-practice guidance.” from the report
Building safety
seriousSome fire doors did not close fully and doors that should have been locked were accessible. The provider addressed the identified problems by the end of the inspection, but this was still a legal breach at the time of inspection.
“We identified risks relating to a small number of fire doors which did not close fully, and doors required to be kept locked which were accessible.” from the report
Management checks
seriousSafety and quality audits had not identified the medicines and building problems found by inspectors. This meant the home's systems were not robust enough to protect people from avoidable risk.
“Safety and quality audits were not always effective in identifying risk and poor practice.” from the report
Response times and staffing
needs fixingSome people experienced delays when using their buzzer, and some relatives reported staff shortages, particularly on the ground floor. Managers agreed to review staff allocation.
“Some people reported delays when they used their buzzer to ask for assistance.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now stored, recorded and checked, including refrigerated medicines and creams or lotions?
- 02What was done to make sure all fire doors close properly and restricted doors remain locked?
- 03How do you check that your audits identify medicine, building safety and other risks before they affect people?
- 04What changes have been made to staffing allocations and buzzer response times, especially on the ground floor?
- 05What progress has been made since the inspection towards achieving a Good rating?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 2020 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 Millbrow Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 February 2018.
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 Halton
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.