Milverton Road

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. We looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life. We looked at 2 quality statements. For the quality statements not inspected, we used the scores awarded at the last inspection to calculate this key question rating. The rating remains good.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Management told us they received new enquiries for a place in the home, but they were currently not taking any new placements as they working to drive improvements in the service.

The service had a comprehensive pre-assessment process for perspective people. This allowed them to assess the care and support needs of the individual, consider history and exposure to trauma within a multi-disciplinary team framework in order to ensure they had the facilities and resources appropriate to the person’s needs. People and their relatives were involved in reviews of their care and support needs.

The service told people and their families about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff knew about people’s cultural heritage and religious needs and how to protect them from discriminatory behaviours and practices. Staff told us people’s care records contained information about people's wishes in relation to how their social and cultural needs should be met.

Managers and staff had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training. However, people did not always receive consistently safe care and support from staff. This was because people had sometimes been deprived of their liberty unlawfully. The service did not have the necessary Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs) authorisation in place, for some people living with restrictions to ensure their safety. There was a significant delay in following-up and renewing 1 person, however during the assessment, we did see evidence of renewal applications being made.