CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Millers Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Millers Grange was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some mental capacity assessments had not been carried out.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. It was unannounced. Inspectors visited on 30 March 2021, as part of inspection activity from 29 March to 6 April. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicine records, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable infection control measures and staff who understood people's needs. People and relatives generally said staff were kind, respectful and responsive.
The report describes personalised care, good support with food and drink, varied activities and strong working with healthcare professionals. The home had quality checks and used learning from incidents to improve care. However, inspectors found that capacity assessments had not been completed where some people were thought unable to make particular decisions.
Safe care
Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding, managed risks and administered medicines safely.
“People living at Millers Grange received safe care from skilled and knowledgeable staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff's compassion. Inspectors observed polite, respectful interactions and support for privacy and independence.
“People and relatives were consistently positive about the caring attitude of the staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences, goals and abilities. Staff shared updates and responded to changes in people's needs.
“People received personalised care and support specific to their needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People were offered choices and special diets were catered for. Mealtimes were not rushed and people could choose where to eat.
“People were supported with nutrition and hydration in a dignified way. The dining environment was pleasant, and food was well-presented.” from the report
Quality improvement
The home used audits, feedback and learning from incidents to make changes. Inspectors found the management and quality monitoring systems effective.
“The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Mental capacity assessments
needs fixingWhere people were thought unable to make particular decisions, the required capacity assessments had not been completed. This could affect how clearly decision-making is recorded and evidenced.
“Where people were thought to not have capacity to make certain decisions, capacity assessments had not been carried out.” from the report
Staff turnover
minorStaff turnover had been reasonably high at times, and recruitment was continuing. Inspectors found enough staff and some continuity through the use of regular agency staff.
“However, staff turnover had been reasonably high at times.” from the report
- 01Have all required mental capacity assessments now been completed, and how are best-interest decisions recorded?
- 02How many permanent staff and agency staff currently support the home, and what is being done about staff turnover?
- 03How are medicine records and care plan audits checked, and how are any errors followed up?
- 04How will activities and contact with families be provided for someone who prefers not to join group activities or needs support with communication?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures, with the home’s premises and care both considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2021. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures in the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, testing people and staff, managing visitors, supporting safe admissions, and keeping the building clean. They also found infection-control training and regular checks for staff.
The home had created a visiting pod, used temperature checks and lateral flow tests for visitors, and gave regular COVID-19 updates to people and relatives.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
PPE and staff training
The home had enough suitable PPE. Staff received infection-control and PPE training, and their skills were checked regularly.
“Staff participated in various training sessions around infection control and using PPE.” from the report
Safe visiting
A visiting pod was provided and visits were booked. Visitors had temperature checks, lateral flow tests and the required PPE.
“A visiting pod had been created to safely facilitate relatives' visits on a pre-booking basis.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home had systems for safe admissions, including requiring a confirmed negative COVID-19 test before admission and planning for isolation.
“The provider had robust systems to ensure safe admissions, including only allowing new admissions after a confirmed negative result of the Covid-19 test.” from the report
Cleaning and infection control
An extra cleaning schedule covered regular touchpoints. The home also had signs and designated areas to support safe handwashing and use of PPE.
“An additional cleaning schedule had been introduced to ensure robust measures to reduce infection risks” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the PPE, infection-control training and staff competency checks changed since the inspection?
- 02What testing and other checks are now required for visitors, and how are visits arranged?
- 03What is the current process for admitting someone who may need to isolate?
- 04How often are regular touchpoint surfaces cleaned now, and how is this checked?
- 05How are people and relatives currently told about infection risks and visiting arrangements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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.
Every inspection of Millers Grange
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 April 2019.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.