CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Millfield Nursing and Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Millfield Nursing and Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-organised care, with responsiveness improved since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 March 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines, staffing, complaints and management checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly and supported with their health, nutrition, choices and daily activities.
The Responsive rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. The overall rating remained Good, the same as the inspection published in August 2018.
People felt safe
People and relatives were confident that staff kept people safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and risk assessments were regularly reviewed.
“People and relatives were confident in the safety of people's care at the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence in day-to-day care.
“We saw staff were kind, caring, compassionate and respectful.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
Staff understood people’s health and dietary needs. They worked with health professionals and provided suitable diets, drinks, snacks and adapted equipment.
“People were supported to maintain or improve their nutrition and to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food they enjoyed” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people’s needs, choices and preferences. Staff knew people well and responded in the way people preferred.
“Throughout this inspection we saw staff responded in a timely manner, to provide people with the care they needed, in the way they preferred and understood.” from the report
Improved responsiveness
The Responsive rating rose from Requires Improvement to Good. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication and end-of-life care.
“At this inspection this key question has improved to Good.” from the report
Visible management
Inspectors found regular quality checks and clear lines of responsibility. People, relatives and staff said managers were available and acted on their views.
“People, relatives and staff we spoke with were positive about management and leadership at the service.” from the report
Safeguarding investigation was ongoing
needs fixingThe report records a recent complaint that was being considered in a local authority safeguarding investigation. It does not give the outcome.
“This included a recent complaint, subject to a local authority safeguarding investigation, which was in progress with the provider.” from the report
COVID-19 arrangements were under review
minorArrangements for social activities, community access and relationships were being reviewed in response to COVID-19 infection-control measures.
“Arrangements for this were placed under immediate review for people's safety, in response to Covid 19 contagion control measures for social distancing.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the recent complaint and local authority safeguarding investigation?
- 02How are visits, social activities and community access currently managed?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels and the mix of nursing and care staff remain sufficient for people’s needs?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in regular care reviews and decisions about daily life?
- 05How do you support people to record and receive their end-of-life care choices?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; the overall rating remained Good, while Responsive improved from Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 April 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, August 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective and caring support, but the home Requires Improvement for responsiveness.
This was an unannounced first inspection of the home since the provider registered in April 2016. The visit took place on 17 May 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and the manager. They also reviewed care records, medicines records and management checks.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring and leadership. Inspectors found that people were generally safe, received their medicines properly, had access to health professionals and were supported by kind and trained staff. People were also offered activities and were supported to keep in touch with family and friends.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for responsiveness. Inspectors found that care was not always timely or inclusive. Some people were not helped quickly enough at lunchtime, drinks were not always available for people to help themselves, and the environment did not fully support the independence and orientation of some people living with dementia or sensory needs.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke highly of staff. Inspectors observed staff protecting people's dignity, offering choices and responding compassionately.
“People received care from staff who were kind, caring and promoted people's dignity, rights and involvement in their care.” from the report
Safe medicines support
People received their medicines safely and consistently. Staff had medicines training and their competence had been checked.
“People's medicines were safely managed. People said they received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People were supported to access health professionals and to maintain their health and nutrition. Meals offered choice and staff followed dietary instructions.
“People were supported to maintain and improve their health and nutrition.” from the report
Activities and community life
People could choose from regular activities, including music, quizzes, crafts and trips out. Some people also received one-to-one activities.
“People were supported to engage in home life and to participate in activities and events they enjoyed, both in and outside the home.” from the report
Delays and staffing pressure
needs fixingSome people and relatives experienced occasional delays. Staff on some shifts were under continuous pressure, which limited the time available for conversation and support beyond direct care tasks.
“some felt staff were often 'stretched' and had 'too much to do.'” from the report
Slow responses at lunchtime
needs fixingInspectors saw people needing help with a napkin or finding a place at a table without receiving timely support. One person became frustrated and later ate with staff support.
“However, at lunchtime staff did not always respond or support people in timely manner when required.” from the report
Environment did not fully support everyone
needs fixingThe home had not fully assessed or adapted the environment for some people living with dementia or sensory needs. This included difficulties recognising rooms and a lack of some orientation or hearing aids.
“Environmental adjustments were not always made to optimise people's inclusion, understanding, independence or environmental orientation.” from the report
Incomplete decision-making records
needs fixingSome nursing-unit records did not accurately record consent or best-interest arrangements. Staff did not always know when another person had legal authority to make decisions about someone's care.
“care plan records for people living on the nursing unit at the service; were not always accurately maintained to show this” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure people receive prompt help at lunchtime, including help with eating, drinking and joining other people at the table?
- 02How can residents get drinks between set drink rounds, especially if they cannot get one for themselves?
- 03What adaptations are now available to help people living with dementia recognise their rooms and find their way around?
- 04How do staff know about legally appointed decision-makers and record consent or best-interest decisions?
- 05How has the home used its staffing tool and recruitment plans to reduce pressure on staff and delays for residents?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection since the provider registered in April 2016, and it assessed all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 August 2017 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 Millfield Nursing and Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Millfield Nursing and Residential Home →
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Millfield Nursing and Residential Home →
- April 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 April 2016.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.