Archived: Mill Lane

Mill Lane provides accommodation and personal care for up to five young adults with a physical and learning disability. There were five people living at the home at the time of our inspection. The home had a registered manager at the time of our visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There was a strong culture within the home of treating people with respect and of high quality care The views of people and their relatives about the quality of care provided at the service were regularly sought and acted on. Relatives said they felt welcomed at the service and would recommend it to other people.

The home was extremely responsive to people's needs. Staff potential to support people with additional tasks such as personal interest and work activities was recognised and promoted. People and staff planned and worked closely together so they could attend social engagement and work activities. People were supported to take part in activities of their choosing, based on their specific requests.

A complaints procedure was available and people knew how to and who to go to, to make a complaint. The registered manager was supportive and approachable, and people or other staff members could speak with them at any time. The home had also introduced an excellent additional system to proactively obtain people’s views so that the initiative was on finding out rather than waiting for people to tell staff.

The home was very well led. Good leadership was in place and the registered manager and provider monitored care and other records to assess the risks to people and ensure that these were reduced as much as possible and to improve the quality of the care provided. The registered manager was very approachable and took action promptly if changes were needed. Staff were encouraged to raise ideas and suggestions and demonstrated the core values of the home during

the inspection.

People felt safe living at the home and staff supported them in a way that they preferred. Staff were aware of safeguarding people from the risk of harm and they knew how to report concerns to the relevant agencies.

Staff assessed individual risks to people and took action to reduce or remove them. There was adequate servicing and maintenance checks to fire equipment and systems in the home to ensure people’s safety.

There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and the registered manager took action to make sure there were staff throughout the home at all times. Recruitment checks for new staff members had been made before new staff members started work to make sure they were safe to work within care.

People received their medicines when they needed them, and staff members who administered medicines had been trained to do this safely. Staff members received other training, which provided them with the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. Staff received adequate support from the registered manager and senior staff, which they found helpful.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. The registered manager had acted on the requirements of the safeguards to ensure that people were protected. Where someone lacked capacity to make their own decisions, the staff were making these for them in their best interests.

People enjoyed their meals and were able to choose what they ate and drank. They received enough food and drink to meet their needs. Staff members contacted health professionals to make sure people received advice and treatment quickly if needed.

Staff were caring, kind, respectful and courteous. Staff members knew people well, what they liked and how they wanted to be treated. They responded to people’s needs well and support was always available. Care plans contained enough information for staff to support individual people with their needs. People were happy living at the home and staff supported them to be as independent as possible.

We spoke with two parents of people who lived at the home, both of whom told us they would recommend the service and felt their family member received good quality care. One parent commented, 'It's a happy house and Scope have high standards'. Another stated, 'I'm very happy with the staff there, no concerns about their competence at all'.

The provider was compliant in all the outcomes we assessed. We found that there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs, that people were treated with respect and dignity and that people's medication was managed safely.