CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Millcroft
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks, safeguarding, staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and incidents were managed effectively.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's physical, mental health and social needs were assessed. Staff had relevant training and support, and people were helped with food, drink, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and compassionate. Inspectors observed people being offered choices and treated with dignity, privacy and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, preferences and needs. People were supported to maintain relationships, take part in activities, communicate, complain and plan for end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture and clear management arrangements. Audits, feedback and meetings were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with strong management and activities.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 15 August 2019. Two inspectors spoke with seven people, five staff and two health and social care professionals. They observed care and medicines being given, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, incident and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines practice, good infection control and effective risk management. Staff were trained and supported, and people had access to food, drink and healthcare.
People described staff as kind and respectful. Care was planned around people's preferences, relationships, activities and communication needs. The manager and provider used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality and make improvements.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff to respond to people and comprehensive assessments for individual and environmental risks.
“Risks to people were effectively assessed, monitored and managed.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received training, supervision and support. Inspectors saw staff checking people's consent before providing care.
“Staff received the training and support they needed to care for people effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed choices being offered and privacy being respected.
“We observed staff consistently providing people with choices throughout the day and checking with them before carrying out any support.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans included people's histories, likes and dislikes. Activities were based on people's interests, with individual alternatives when group activities were not suitable.
“Care plans were detailed and written in a person-centred way.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager used audits, feedback and meetings to identify and record improvements.
“Clear lines of accountability meant that staff understood their roles and responsibilities.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, including mobility, falls, skin care or nutrition?
- 02How would you support my relative's medicines, including any medicines prescribed to be given only when needed?
- 03What training and supervision would the staff supporting my relative have?
- 04How would you adapt activities and communication for my relative's interests, abilities or sensory needs?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in care reviews, complaints and end of life planning?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 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, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but activities were not always well planned.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 13 September 2016. Two inspectors reviewed records, observed care and spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers. They looked at five care plans, medicines records, risk assessments, complaints and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received their medicines and had enough staff support. Staff were trained and knew people well. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were involved in choices about their care, food and daily lives.
The main shortfall was activities. Activities were available, but records did not show clear planning around people's individual interests. The inspectors recommended improving activity planning and recording because some people could become under-stimulated. All five areas were rated Good, meaning the inspectors found the service met the required standard at the time of the visit.
Safe care and medicines
The home assessed risks, had safeguarding procedures and used enough staff. Medicines were stored, given and checked safely.
“Medicines were managed safely and people had access to their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm and respectful relationships. Staff adapted how they communicated to each person's preferences and encouraged independence.
“The staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's histories, choices and routines. People and relatives were involved in reviews and decisions about care.
“People received a person centred service that enabled them to live active and meaningful lives in the way they wanted.” from the report
Responsive management
The manager and staff responded to complaints and used checks, surveys and meetings to make improvements.
“Audits to monitor the quality of service were effective and embedded.” from the report
Activities were not structured enough
needs fixingActivities were available, but the activity diary did not consistently show who took part, what they did or how they responded. The inspectors said this could leave some people under-stimulated.
“However, activities were not always structured meaning that people could potentially become under stimulated.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the planning and recording of activities since this inspection?
- 02How do you identify each person's interests and make sure activities are meaningful for them?
- 03How do you check that people who do not join group activities are not becoming under-stimulated?
- 04How will you involve me and my relative in care plan reviews and decisions?
- 05How do you monitor staffing levels if a person's needs change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions; the report says the previous inspection in November 2013 found the home compliant in all areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 2016 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 Millcroft
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.