Mill House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 6 May 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

We carried an inspection of Mill house on 18 March 2026, with a further visit on 26 March 2026. The inspection was carried out due to the age of the previous rating when it was rated good in 2018. It had a registered manager in post and was supporting 22 people at the time of our inspection.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Staff confirmed they received training in both mental health and learning disability and felt equipped to support people over a wide spectrum of needs.

Staff were relaxed in their approach, and we observed good teamwork. A concern had been received about staff practices and the culture of the service, and this had been reviewed and staff supported to ensure they worked effectively as a team. We found the manager and deputy manager were open and honest, and they facilitated any request for information.

The environment was personalised and people’s bedrooms were of a good standard of cleanliness and maintenance. However, the building was old, (a listed building) which had some inherent limitations such as internal stairs and low ceilings in part.

Care plans were paper based and whilst they were comprehensive, we found important information was not always cross referenced. For example, one-page profiles did not contain all the key information we saw included in other documents which meant important things could be missed. We found staff supporting people knew their needs well, but agency staff were occasionally used particularly at night, so it was important to have accurate, up to date information. Immediately following our first visit, the manager addressed our concerns which included reviewing the paperwork and rectifying the concerns we had about the environment.

There were good quality assurance systems in place to help ensure the service was run and managed effectively in line with people’s needs and relevant legislation. Feedback was sought and used to improve the service people received and was inclusive of visitors and relatives to the service who could also contribute to the process.

Risks were managed effectively, but we could not always see clear outcomes or lessons learnt from the documentation reviewed and this was fed back to, and addressed by, the manager.