CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Milward House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing, visitor safety and admissions. They found that the approach to isolating residents who became symptomatic or tested positive was not clearly recorded.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Milward House: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection controls, but isolation plans were not clearly recorded.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than the full range of care quality.
Inspectors were assured that staff used protective equipment safely, people and staff could access testing, the building was clean, and visitors were screened. People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends, including through carefully managed visits.
The home did not have a clearly recorded approach for isolating residents who became unwell or tested positive. The manager said this would be addressed through a risk assessment, particularly because some residents had dementia.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating for the overall service or for the Safe question.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was used safely and that infection prevention arrangements were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment effectively and safely.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in touch with relatives through telephone, internet and carefully managed in-person visits.
“People were well supported by staff to have telephone and internet contact with their family and friends.” from the report
Clean environment
The building was clean and free from clutter, which supported the infection control arrangements described by inspectors.
“The building was clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Activities and welfare
Staff supported people's welfare and provided stimulation through activities.
“Staff ensured people's welfare had been maintained and they had sufficient stimulation, such as activities.” from the report
Isolation arrangements
needs fixingThere was no clearly recorded plan for isolating residents who became symptomatic or tested positive. The manager said this would be addressed through a risk assessment.
“there was not a clearly recorded approach to isolating residents should they become symptomatic or test positive.” from the report
- 01What risk assessment was completed for isolating residents who become symptomatic or test positive?
- 02How would isolation work for residents with dementia who may not understand or follow the arrangements?
- 03What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 04How are visitors screened and how are in-person visits managed?
- 05How are residents supported to keep in contact with family and friends if visits are restricted?
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 14 April 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements needed to complaints records and end of life planning.
Inspectors visited the home without advance notice on 14 and 18 December 2017. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas and quality checks.
They found people were safe and received their medicines when needed. Staff were trained, risks were assessed, food and drink were monitored where necessary, and people could access health professionals.
People were treated kindly and with respect. Care was planned around individual routines, preferences, faith and interests. The home had activities, involved families in care decisions and responded to complaints, although complaints were not given written responses.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service met the CQC standards checked at this inspection, but it does not mean that every part of care was perfect.
Safe care
Risks were assessed with clear instructions for staff. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and safe systems for medicines.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs and to keep them safe.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw staff respond thoughtfully to people's comfort and wellbeing.
“Staff treated people with kindness and compassion in their day to day care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded detailed routines, preferences, histories and spiritual needs. Staff used this information to provide consistent, individual care.
“People received an individualised care service that was tailored to their needs.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with GPs, district nurses, hospices, dieticians and other professionals to support people's health.
“People maintained good health and had access to health and social care professionals.” from the report
Quality oversight
The manager used regular audits, feedback and incident reviews to identify problems and make improvements.
“There were effective systems for assessing, monitoring and developing the quality of the service being provided to people.” from the report
Complaints responses
needs fixingThe home investigated complaints and recorded learning, but none had a written response. This made it harder to know whether complaints had been fully resolved and whether people knew how to appeal.
“None of the complaints had a written response which means it was difficult to measure whether the complaints were fully resolved in a timely manner” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingEnd of life care was described as sensitive, but the plans did not clearly explain how people would be supported to prepare for the end of life phase.
“The service had end of life care plans but these did not make it clear how people would be supported to prepare for the end of life phase.” from the report
- 01How do you now give people a written response to a complaint and explain how they can escalate it?
- 02How are people's wishes about preparing for the end of life discussed and recorded?
- 03How many staff will be working on each shift, and how is this adjusted when people's needs change?
- 04How will you support my relative's faith, personal routines, interests and independence?
- 05How are medicines reviewed when a person's health or ability to take them changes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the overall service and all five CQC question areas, and it was the first inspection under the home's new registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 2018 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 Milward House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 December 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.