CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Millgate House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People’s health and safety risks were identified and managed safely. Medicines, staffing, fire safety, infection control and safeguarding arrangements were found to be good, although one staff member’s pre-employment checks needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care records were up to date and staff were trained and knowledgeable. Inspectors found that capacity and consent records were not detailed enough to guide all staff.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They understood people’s communication methods, preferences and histories, and involved relatives in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people’s needs, choices and communication requirements. People had access to daily activities and relatives knew how to raise concerns or complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were approachable and staff felt involved in running the home. Quality systems were in place, but they had not identified some recruitment and mental capacity issues found during the inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but some recruitment, capacity and checking records needed improvement.
The CQC visited the home on 15 and 16 January 2019. An inspector looked around the home, spoke with relatives, healthcare professionals, managers and care staff, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and safety checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people’s risks were managed, care records were current, medicines were recorded accurately, and staff knew people well and treated them kindly.
There were some areas to improve. One staff member’s pre-employment checks were incomplete. Capacity and consent records were not detailed enough, and quality checks had not identified all the issues found. The report says the legal requirements were met, and the home was rated Good overall.
Safe risk management
Inspectors found that risks such as choking, fire and evacuation were assessed and managed. Medicines records checked for two people were accurate.
“Risks to people's health and well-being had been identified, and were managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and used their communication methods to understand their needs and choices. Relatives and professionals spoke positively about their approach.
“Staff are excellent and the home has a fantastic support team, that works closely with service users and their families.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people’s current needs, preferences and communication requirements. Activities were planned around individual interests.
“Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and preferences and used this detail to care for people in the way they wanted.” from the report
Good staff skills
Staff had completed induction and relevant training, and said they received supervision, appraisal and development support.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled. They carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Approachable management
Relatives, healthcare professionals and staff said management was approachable. Staff meetings and meetings for people using the service took place.
“All the relatives and healthcare professionals we spoke with told us that management were approachable.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousIn one case, not all recruitment checks had been completed before a staff member started work. The manager said further enquiries would be made.
“Recruitment systems and processes were in place but in one case, insufficient recruitment checks had been made prior to the member of staff starting work.” from the report
Capacity and consent records
needs fixingThe home was following the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, but some capacity assessments and consent records were missing or limited. Inspectors recommended a clearer process so all staff could follow people’s legal and care arrangements.
“However, capacity assessments were limited and when formal assessments were unavailable from healthcare professionals, there were insufficient guides to staff on the position of the person they were supporting.” from the report
Quality checks missed issues
needs fixingThe home had audits and action plans, but its checks did not identify the recruitment and mental capacity issues found during the inspection. Inspectors recommended that the quality assurance system be revised.
“However, checks were not effective in identifying issues we found during this inspection.” from the report
- 01What further recruitment checks were completed for the staff member whose checks were incomplete?
- 02How do you now record mental capacity assessments and consent for people who may lack capacity?
- 03How will staff who are new to the home find out about a person’s background, family situation and care decisions?
- 04What changes have you made to quality audits so they identify recruitment, capacity and consent issues?
- 05How will my relative’s individual communication needs, preferences and activities be recorded and reviewed?
This was a comprehensive inspection of the home and its support to one person living in the community, covering all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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 Millgate House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 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 12 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.