CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Millfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Safeguarding, recruitment, risk management and infection control were found to be effective. Medicines were generally well managed, but inspectors found minor documentation problems that were corrected straightaway.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supervision, and people received support with food, drink and healthcare. The home was well maintained and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to make everyday choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were generally personalised and people had access to varied activities and support with communication. One person did not have a required catheter care plan, but the manager corrected this immediately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, regular audits and a good team culture. The management team responded promptly to the improvements identified during the inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, effective care, with minor medicine-record and care-planning issues fixed promptly.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited on 5 and 13 September 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, observed care and a lunchtime meal, looked around the building, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safeguarding systems worked, staff were safely recruited, the home was clean, and infection-control practices were good.
People were supported by kind staff who respected privacy, dignity and independence. Inspectors also found good healthcare support, a choice of food, activities and a pleasant, well-maintained environment.
There were some minor problems with medicine records and one missing catheter care plan. These were corrected during the inspection. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 6 August 2018.
Kind and respectful care
People were supported patiently and respectfully. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“Staff supported people carefully and patiently. Staff had chatty, positive interactions with people.” from the report
Good safeguarding
The home had systems for recognising, reporting and reviewing safeguarding concerns. Staff understood how to raise concerns.
“There was a system to document and report safeguarding incidents.” from the report
Good food and choice
People were offered home-cooked food, fresh fruit, baking and a wide choice of meals and desserts.
“Good quality 'home cooked' meals were provided, with home baking and fresh fruit available between meals.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home offered varied activities, trips, entertainment and opportunities for community involvement.
“There was a varied and interesting activities programme which included community involvement, intergenerational opportunities, visiting artists and entertainers and trips out.” from the report
Good management
The manager and senior staff carried out regular checks and acted promptly when inspectors identified issues.
“The management team responded promptly to the areas we found needed improvement on this inspection.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingInspectors found minor problems in medicine administration records and in recording the use of fluid thickener. These issues were corrected straightaway and steps were taken to prevent them happening again.
“We found some minor issues with the way staff documented information on the medicine administration records (MAR), and fluid thickener was not correctly documented when it was used.” from the report
Missing catheter care plan
needs fixingOne person with a catheter did not have the required care plan in place. The manager corrected this during the inspection.
“However, one person who had a catheter did not have the required care plan in place.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
minorSome people and relatives felt staffing was tighter at certain times, particularly in the mornings. Inspectors found no evidence of staffing problems during the inspection.
“There seem to be fewer staff in the mornings, and they seem more stretched than they used to be.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine administration records and fluid-thickener records are complete?
- 02How do you make sure every person with a catheter has a current care plan?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty in the mornings, and how do you cover gaps?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing personalised care plans?
- 05Which activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, communication needs and abilities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 September 2023 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 were assured about infection control during a targeted coronavirus inspection.
Inspectors visited the home on 25 January 2021. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found visitor screening, including lateral flow testing, regular testing for people and staff, suitable use of protective equipment, hand sanitiser and enhanced cleaning. They were assured that the home was managing infection risks, admissions, shielding, social distancing and possible outbreaks.
The home was clean and well maintained. Staff helped people keep in touch with family and friends through phone, video and some window visits. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas.
Visitor screening
Visitors were screened and had a lateral flow COVID-19 test.
“There was a screening procedure in place for any visitors to the home. This included a lateral flow COVID-19 test.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and well maintained, with enhanced cleaning to reduce infection transmission.
“The building was clean and well-maintained. The risk of infection transmission was minimised through enhanced cleaning schedules.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
Staff had infection control training, enough protective equipment and used it correctly. People and staff were tested regularly in line with government guidance.
“Staff had received infection prevention and control training. There was an ample supply of PPE and we observed staff wearing it correctly.” from the report
Family contact
Staff supported people to stay in touch with relatives and friends using phone and video calls, with some window visits allowed.
“Staff helped people to stay in touch with family and friends through phone and video calls. Some 'window' visits were permitted.” from the report
Support for staff
The manager was available to support staff, and counselling was available for anyone needing extra help.
“The registered manager had an 'open door' management approach and was on hand to offer emotional support to staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors screened and tested now?
- 02How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 03How do you make sure staff continue to use protective equipment correctly?
- 04How are residents currently supported to keep in touch with family and friends?
- 05What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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 Millfield
3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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 Oldham
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.