CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Millenium Care Limited - 1 Old Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- There were enough staff and people received medicines safely. However, recruitment checks were not always robust, and some staff were not wearing all the expected protective equipment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans had been improved. Staff supported people's diets, health appointments and daily choices, although some Mental Capacity Act decisions were not recorded correctly.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in the report. Inspectors recorded positive feedback about caring staff and observed staff supporting people respectfully.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not separately rated in the report. People had individual activities and support to keep in contact with family, although lockdown had restricted usual leisure activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and quality assurance manager carried out regular audits and staff said they felt supported. However, the provider had not identified its own recruitment omissions.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but safety checks for recruitment, consent records and protective equipment needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 21 April 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, social workers and staff. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and training records, and checked the building and infection control.
The home supported nine people with learning and physical disabilities. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, health needs, activities and contact with relatives. Medicines were given safely, care plans had improved, and relatives were mostly positive about the staff and manager.
The Safe rating remained Requires Improvement. Recruitment checks were not always properly verified, some staff did not wear all expected protective equipment, and records did not always show the correct best-interest process under the Mental Capacity Act.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good since the previous inspection in 2019. Effective and Well-led were rated Good. The report says improvements had been made in all areas since the last inspection.
Staff knew people well
People had lived in the home for several years. Staff knew their needs and supported their preferences and independence.
“People living in the home had lived there for several years and staff knew them and their needs well.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely, records were complete and staff were trained and checked as competent.
“There were effective systems in place to ensure people received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Improved care planning
Care plans had been updated and errors from the previous inspection had been corrected. Staff understood people's needs and preferences.
“The registered manager had improved and updated all care plans since the last inspection.” from the report
Positive management and teamwork
Staff described the manager as supportive and said they could ask for advice. Audits were being used to find and follow up improvements.
“There were systems in place to monitor and oversee the quality of the service.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome references did not match employment information, and there was no evidence showing how several references had been verified. This created a risk that unsuitable staff could be employed.
“This meant there was a risk that that unsuitable staff may be employed.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
needs fixingThe home did not always record best-interest decisions correctly when people could not consent to important decisions such as medicines or vaccination.
“We recommend the service seek further training in best practice in the MCA.” from the report
Protective equipment
needs fixingSome staff were not wearing aprons and gloves as expected. The infection control audit did not check whether staff were wearing protective equipment correctly.
“The most recent infection prevention and control audit did not include a check of whether staff on duty were wearing PPE correctly.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the checking and verification of staff references since this inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure staff wear the required aprons and gloves, and how is this checked?
- 03How are best-interest decisions recorded when a person cannot consent to medicines, vaccinations or other important decisions?
- 04What training have staff received on the Mental Capacity Act since the inspection?
- 05How will you check that the improvements noted in this report are maintained?
This inspection assessed Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not separately rated in the report, and the inspection also checked infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 June 2021 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, June 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and major progress, but medicines and infection control were still not always safe.
This was an unannounced inspection over 11 and 16 April 2019. One social care inspector and one pharmacist inspector visited, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and meals, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home had improved significantly since its previous Inadequate rating. People were settled and happy, staff knew them well, and inspectors rated care as Good. Health support, mealtimes, the building and management checks had all improved.
There were still important shortfalls. Bathrooms and bedrooms did not have soap and hand towels at the start of the inspection, food hygiene practices were not adequate, and medicine allergy records and covert medicine arrangements were not always safe. Care and meal records also did not always show that people's individual needs were being met.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all Requires Improvement, while Caring was Good. The home was no longer Inadequate, but CQC required further action on infection control.
Kind relationships
People were settled and knew staff well. Inspectors saw calm, positive interactions and relatives generally felt staff were caring.
“People living in this home were settled and happy.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had made significant changes across the service, including to the building, care, medicines guidance, eating support and management checks.
“The provider had made significant improvements in all areas since the last inspection.” from the report
Health and eating support
The home worked with occupational therapists and speech and language therapists. Staff followed written guidance more safely for people with physical disabilities and eating or drinking difficulties.
“These people were now receiving a better standard of care.” from the report
Choice and activities outside the home
People were supported to go to shops, cafés, parks, clubs, day centres and gardening projects. The home also supported an annual holiday.
“People could go out every day if they chose.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff had regular supervision, appraisals and training. They said they felt supported and enjoyed their work.
“Staff had regular supervision and appraisals and told us they felt well supported by the registered manager.” from the report
Infection control
seriousThere was no soap or hand towel in bathrooms and bedrooms when inspectors arrived. Staff also did not use the required aprons or tie back their hair when serving food.
“When we arrived on the first day of the inspection there was no soap or hand towels in the bathrooms nor in people's bedrooms.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousMedicine administration records did not include people's allergies. Covert medicines were not always supported by person-specific guidance or consultation with families.
“Staff did not record allergies to medicines on the Medicines Administration Records (MAR).” from the report
Care planning and activities
needs fixingSome assessments and positive behaviour support plans lacked detail. There were no activities in the home during the inspection for people who did not go out.
“Visiting professionals' feedback was that there was a lack of activities taking place in the home for those who didn't go out.” from the report
Incomplete health records
seriousTwo people had no recorded bowel movement for eight and nine days. The report said this was an administrative error, but inaccurate records created a risk of unsafe care.
“Not keeping accurate records left people a risk of unsafe care.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure soap and hand towels are available in every bathroom and bedroom?
- 02How are medicine allergies recorded and checked before medicines are given?
- 03If someone is given medicine covertly, how do you record the best-interest decision, involve family and consider alternatives?
- 04How do you record every meal to show that medical, allergy, cultural and religious dietary needs are met?
- 05What activities are available inside the home for people who do not go out?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and checking progress after the previous Inadequate rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 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 Millenium Care Limited - 1 Old Park
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Millenium Care Limited - 1 Old Park →
- June 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Millenium Care Limited - 1 Old Park →
- February 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Enfield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.