1-127503773_Mill_View_Residential_and_Nursing_Home_INS1-842753583_Scheduled_01-07-2014

| Inspection Report | Mill View Residential and Nursing Home | June 2014 www.cqc.org.uk 1

Inspection Report

We are the regulator: Our job is to check whether hospitals, care homes and care services are meeting essential standards.

Mill View Residential and Nursing Home

Bridgeman Street, Bolton, BL3 6SA Tel: 01204391211

Date of Inspection: 10 June 2014 Date of Publication: June 2014

We inspected the following standards as part of a routine inspection. This is what we found:

Care and welfare of people who use services Met this standard

Safeguarding people who use services from abuse

Met this standard

Management of medicines Met this standard

Staffing Met this standard

Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision

Met this standard


Details about this location

Registered Provider Bupa Care Homes (CFHCare) Limited

Registered Manager Mrs Suzanne Scholz

Overview of the service

Mill View is a care home providing nursing and personal care for up to 180 mainly older people within six houses. It issituated in Great Lever about half a mile from Bolton town centre. The home is situated in its own grounds with garden areas and car parking available at the front of the home.

Type of service Care home service with nursing

Regulated activities Accommodation for persons who require nursing or personalcare

Diagnostic and screening procedures

Treatment of disease, disorder or injury


Contents

When you read this report, you may find it useful to read the sections towards the back called 'About CQC inspections' and 'How we define our judgements'.

Page

Summary of this inspection:

Why we carried out this inspection 4

How we carried out this inspection 4

What people told us and what we found 4

More information about the provider 7

Our judgements for each standard inspected:

Care and welfare of people who use services 8

Safeguarding people who use services from abuse 11

Management of medicines 13

Staffing 14

Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision 15

About CQC Inspections 17

How we define our judgements 18

Glossary of terms we use in this report 20

Contact us 22


Summary of this inspection

Why we carried out this inspection

This was a routine inspection to check that essential standards of quality and safety referred to on the front page were being met. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection.

This was an unannounced inspection.

How we carried out this inspection

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 10 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and were accompanied by a pharmacist. We reviewed information sent to us by local groups of people in the community or voluntary sector, talked with other authorities, talked with local groups of people in the community or voluntary sector and used information fromlocal Healthwatch to inform our inspection.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific wayof observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We were supported on this inspection by an expert-by-experience. This is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

What people told us and what we found

During this inspection the Inspector gathered evidence to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

During the inspection we looked at care and welfare, safeguarding, management of medicines, staffing and quality assurance.

This is a summary of what we found, using evidence obtained via speaking with stakeholders, speaking with staff, speaking with people who used the service and their relatives, observing care delivery and looking at records:

Is the service caring?

We undertook a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI) on one of the dementia units. SOFI is a tool used by inspectors to allow them to observe moods, interactions and activities for a sustained length of time. The atmosphere was calm, peoplewere offered a choice of food and there was good staff interaction and encouragement offered. Staff did not rush people with their food and staff sat on people's level and chatted with them.


We saw personal preferences were recorded within the care records. Where people were unable to express their wishes these had been obtained from family members.

We spoke with staff members who demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of thepeople within their unit. Staff were complimentary about the new manager, who they described as very supportive and "a breath of fresh air".

We spoke with several visitors and most comments were positive.

One visitor felt their relative had put on some weight, "X enjoys the food and is a good eater". The person who used the service added, "They are good at giving you choice."

Another person said, "I've no complaints except at the beginning with getting X's own clothes", but that problem had been resolved as the system of laundering had been changed.

A third visitor said they visited three to four times weekly and had no concerns around care. They told us staff were very good, though they felt more staff should be on duty at mealtimes as they had observed a significant number of people required assistance with meals.

Other comments included, "No complaints", "Food good", "Some staff I like some I don't", "Not enough staff", and "No stimulation whatever". People who used the service agreed that when call assistance buzzers were pressed they didn't have to wait very long.

We spoke with the manager about the need for additional activities which they agreed theywere aware of and had plans to address.

Is the service responsive?

Care plans we looked at demonstrated an individual approach to care, containing personalinformation, family background, likes and dislikes, preferences and culture in order to facilitate personalised care.

There were forums for people to make suggestions, discuss issues or raise concerns, such as the monthly relatives and residents meetings. The manager endeavoured to be available to speak with people if they had anything they wanted to discuss.

There was evidence within the care records that people's mental capacity was taken into consideration with regard to decision making and care was taken to ensure they were assisted to make their own decisions where possible.

There was evidence within the care records that the service responded to people's changing needs and updated the support plans appropriately.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments were in place in the care records. These risk assessments were reviewed and updated regularly to ensure people's needs were met safely.

Medication Administration Records (MARs) were generally clear and accurate.

Medicines were only handled and administered by trained Registered Nurses on the


nursing units and by Senior Carers on the residential units, who had been assessed as having the appropriate skills to manage medicines safely.

The manager carried out regular audits on medicines to make sure they were being handled properly. We saw evidence that where concerns had been found, action had beentaken to address them and help prevent them from happening again.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were sought appropriately from the supervising body (the Local Authority) and staff were aware of the individual nature of the authorisations and particular techniques to be used with each individual to keep them safe.

There were adequate numbers of staff in evidence to effectively care for the people who used the service.

Staff had undertaken appropriate training in areas such as Manual Handling, Health and Safety, Fire Safety and Safeguarding.

Safeguarding issues had been followed up appropriately by the home.

Is the service effective?

The home endeavoured to involve people who used the service with their care plan reviews. People's health and care needs were assessed and monitoring charts, such as weights and falls were complete and up to date.

Appropriate referrals were made to other professionals, such as the Dementia In Reach Team, when assistance, specialist help or advice was needed.

Special and cultural diets were supplied where required.

Signage, colours and layout demonstrated a commitment to good and effective care for people who were living with dementia.

Is the service well-led?

There was a registered manager in place who was appropriately registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

A significant number of audits and checks were in place, including Infection Control, Medication, Care Files, Health and Safety, Fire Safety, Accidents and Incidents and Complaints. This helped the home to continually monitor, review and improve the service delivery.

The manager had been in post only a short time but a significant number of staff told us many areas had improved since their appointment, including staff morale, the environment, communication and staffing levels.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.


More information about the provider

Please see our website www.cqc.org.uk for more information, including our most recent judgements against the essential standards. You can contact us using the telephone number on the back of the report if you have additional questions.

There is a glossary at the back of this report which has definitions for words and phrases we use in the report.


Our judgements for each standard inspected

Care and welfare of people who use services Met this standard

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights

Our judgement

The provider was meeting this standard.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

We spent some time on each of the six houses, paying particular attention to those accommodating people living with dementia.

One had a large communal area, comprising half dining area and half open plan lounge. Appropriate music was playing and there were flags and bunting to celebrate the World Cup. There was a date/weather/time board and menus were displayed. There was good signage around to assist with orientation.

The unit was clean and warm with no offensive odours. Bedroom doors were painted different colours and had numbers and name plates to help people with dementia to identify their own rooms easily. Bathroom doors were a different colour for easy recognition. The bathrooms were clean and fitted with adaptations to assist people with poor mobility.

We undertook a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI) on the unit. SOFI is atool used by inspectors to allow them to observe moods, interactions and activities for a sustained length of time. The atmosphere was calm, people were offered a choice of food for breakfast and there was good staff interaction and encouragement offered. Staff did not rush people with their food and some were still finishing their breakfasts at 11 am. Staffsat on people's level and chatted with them.

People were well-presented and staff responded swiftly and efficiently when assistance was needed. Plenty of drinks and snacks were offered throughout the day.

We observed lunch on another unit. The tables were nicely laid and people were given the choice of cold or hot drinks. There was a menu on the table with lunch on one side and theevening meal on the other. Lunch consisted of soup, a choice of main course and a pudding.

On this unit we spoke with four visitors and a number of people who used the service.


Comments included: "No complaints", "Food good", "Some staff I like some I don't", "Not enough staff", and "No stimulation whatever". People who used the service agreed that when call assistance buzzers were pressed they didn't have to wait very long.

We did not see activities taking place on this unit. A visitor said they visited three to four times weekly and had no concerns around care. They told us staff were very good, though felt more staff should be on duty at mealtimes as they had observed a significant number of people required assistance with meals.

We looked at eight care plans and they included pre admission assessments, personal details, mental capacity assessments around decision making abilities and daily record sheets. Risk assessments were in place around areas such as falls, nutrition and mobility.Charts recording weights and wound care were in situ. All sections of the care plans were complete and up to date and appropriate referrals to other professionals were recorded, aswere accidents and incidents. End of life care had been discussed and people's wishes documented.

Personal preferences were recorded within the records. Where people were unable to express their wishes these had been obtained from family members. We spoke with staff members and they demonstrated a good understanding of the needs of the people within their unit. Staff were complimentary about the new manager, who they described as very supportive and "a breath of fresh air".

Staff had received training in areas such as moving and handling, infection control, fire safety , safeguarding and dementia. This was confirmed by training records and we saw refresher training was regularly offered.

One staff member said, "Staff morale has improved since the appointment of the manager.We work well as a team". All staff spoken with were complimentary about the manager, said she listened and they felt supported by her.

Two people in the home were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) Authorisations which are sought when a person needs to be deprived of their liberty in their own best interests. This can be due to a lack of insight into their condition and the risks involved in the event of leaving the home alone. The paperwork was kept within eachperson's file and was complete and up to date with review dates clearly recorded.

Most of the conditions attached to authorisations were being adhered to. One condition, concerning facilitating a person's spiritual needs had slipped due to family ceasing to assist with this. We spoke with the manager and she agreed to contact the local church to try to fulfil this condition.

Two other people had been subject to DoLS but the authorisations had been discontinued as they no longer needed them in place. This showed a commitment from the home to looking at people's best interests and ensuring authorisations were only in place where appropriate.

There was a weekly newsletter, library trolley and sweet trolley. A café had been set up in a communal area and was open three times a week for people and/or their relatives to use. Drinks and snacks were served and the café was being used on the day of the visit, helping people feel part of a wider community.

We saw evidence of some activities within the home. There was a poster displayed


advertising the home's forthcoming Summer Fayre. On one of the dementia units we saw copies of "The Sparkle" a reminiscence activity newspaper, designed to be read with people living with dementia, to stimulate memory and discussion. The manager told us thiscould be used by staff and visitors to aid them with conversation and engagement.

We saw notices about the monthly relatives and residents meetings and saw minutes of the most recent one. This was used to welcome the new management, discuss food and activities and encourage suggestions and participation.

We spoke with the manager around the need for more meaningful activities and stimulation for people who used the service. They were aware of this and assured us planswere in place to address this issue.


Safeguarding people who use services from abuse Met this standard

People should be protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights

Our judgement


People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.


There were appropriate safeguarding policies and procedures in place for the home, including the local procedures to follow in the event of a safeguarding concern.

We spoke with a number of care staff who demonstrated an awareness of safeguarding adults issues and were confident that they would be able to identify concerns and be able to follow the correct processes if necessary. Staff were able to give examples of what might constitute abuse or poor practice.

Staff were aware of whistle blowing procedures which are procedures that concern staff being able to report any poor practice, under performance or potential abusive practice they may witness.

All staff had undertaken safeguarding training and there had been recent refresher trainingon safeguarding facilitated by the local council, which some staff had attended. However, the take up by staff had been disappointing. We spoke with the manager about this and they agreed to ensure full attendance for future courses due to the important nature of continually refreshing knowledge on these subjects.

The Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) sets out the legal requirements and guidance around how to ascertain people's capacity to make particular decisions at certain times. There is also direction on how to assist someone in the decision making process. The staffmembers with whom we spoke were aware of the MCA and had undertaken some training in this area.

The staff on the unit where DoLS were in place had a good understanding of the reasons underpinning the authorisations and were knowledgeable about how best to apply these, ensuring the least restrictive means were used. We were told that all staff had some understanding of DoLS, but further training was planned to explore the subject in more depth, for example, when it would be appropriate to use DoLS in the area of managing people with behaviour that challenged.

We looked at the most recent safeguarding concerns at the home and saw these had been


followed up appropriately. All issues had been reported to the local safeguarding team andrelevant notifications had been made to CQC. We saw evidence of good and timely management of staff poor performance, which could help prevent incidents of bad practiceoccurring.


Management of medicines Met this standard

People should be given the medicines they need when they need them, and in a safe way

Our judgement


People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.


We were accompanied by a pharmacist inspector on this visit. Overall we found medicineswere being managed safely and people living in the home were given their medication as prescribed.

We checked the medicines records and stocks for fifteen people who lived on two differentunits of the home.

The medicines storage areas were clean and well organised and medicines were kept securely in locked trolleys and cabinets. We found there were adequate stocks of each person's medicines available with no excess stock. Having good stock control helps to reduce the amount of medicines stored and potentially wasted.

Medication Administration Records (MARs) were generally clear and accurate. We checked a sample of medicines against the corresponding records and these showed that medicines had been given correctly. Records for the application of creams were kept and we could see that these products had been used as prescribed.

Some medicines, such as painkillers, were prescribed to be taken only 'when required'. Many people living in the home could ask for these medicines when they needed them. However some people had poor communication skills and were unable to do so. Information was available for nurses to follow to enable them to support these people to take their medicines safely and with due regard to their individual needs and preferences.

Medicines were only handled and administered by trained Registered Nurses or Senior Carers who had been assessed as having the appropriate skills to manage medicines safely. Having well trained staff reduces the risk of making mistakes with medicines.

The manager carried out regular audits (checks) on medicines to make sure they were being handled properly. We saw evidence that where concerns had been found, action had been taken to address them and help prevent them from happening again. There wereclear processes in place for reporting errors or near-misses and the Nurses and Senior Carers we spoke with confirmed this and said they felt supported in their roles by the home's management.


Staffing Met this standard

There should be enough members of staff to keep people safe and meet their health and welfare needs

Our judgement


There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.


We observed the staffing levels on four of the six units and saw there were adequate numbers of staff in evidence on all of these units. For example, one of the units which catered for people who had dementia and nursing needs had a nurse, five carers and a hostess who assisted with meals and served drinks. There were 24 people in that unit on the day of the inspection, with two admissions due the following week.

Most staff spoken with felt the levels were adequate and they had a "twilight" member of staff that came on at 17.00 to help with the evening meal, suppers and assisting people to bed. Some staff told us they struggled at times due to some of the dependency levels of the people who used the service.

Another unit which was a residential dementia unit had one unit manager, three care staff, one practitioner a hostess and a domestic. There were 28 people in the unit and one was in hospital. We were told there were three members of staff on nights and they were also looking at appointing a twilight member of staff on this unit.

Staff had undertaken all mandatory training and many had attended further courses to enhance their knowledge and skills. Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good knowledge of the needs of the people they cared for.

The manager told us they were in the process of moving staff around to ensure there weremore staff available where the highest level of need was identified. The manager also said they had recently recruited nine new care staff who were due to start by the end of the month.


Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision

Met this standard

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care

Our judgement


The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of servicethat people receive.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.


There was a manager in place who was appropriately registered with the CQC.

We were shown evidence of a large number of audits undertaken by the home. Monthly medication and care plan audits were carried out on each unit and we saw the most recentof these. They included comments, actions required, completion dates and a note of the person responsible for the actions. We saw evidence of completed actions from previous audits, demonstrating that they were followed up appropriately.

The housekeeper was the lead on Infection Control audits, which were undertaken on a three monthly basis and we again saw evidence of previous audits and completed action plans. The kitchen manager conducted weekly audits of their own, which included menus, temperature checks, service and cleaning checks.

The Chef Manager ensured they visited the units to gain regular feedback from people who used the service about the food. They also looked at weight charts and discussed anyidentified individual needs for fortified diets as well as looking at the area of special diets, such as cultural foods, diabetic or soft diets.

The manager told us they held clinical risk meetings on each unit on a weekly basis and issues would be identified, noted and actions completed. We saw an example of the kind of issue arising within these meetings which concerned a person who used the service having suffered a number of falls. This had resulted in a referral to the Falls Team, requestfor a nursing assessment and the installation of a falls diary to be completed by staff on the unit.

The manager told us they did frequent walk round spot checks and the house managers and housekeeping manager did the same as another means of identifying any issues or concerns. The manager, who had been in post since February 2014, had carried out two night time spot checks. She had undertaken some nursing shifts and ensured that she was


on duty one evening per week until 9 pm, to make herself available to night workers as well as visitors who were unable to visit during the day.

The regional manager carried out a monthly provider review, from which they fed back anyissues identified. The company's compliance officer had visited the previous month and undertaken a general audit where the home scored 94% overall.

Equipment maintenance and services were up to date, fire safety and alarm checks were carried out weekly and people's Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPS) were also checked weekly to ensure the information around their dependency levels in an emergency situation were kept up to date.

There was a residents and relatives monthly meeting which was held on the third Wednesday of each month. This provided an opportunity for people to offer suggestions, make comments and raise concerns.

We looked at the complaints log and saw complaints were dealt with promptly and appropriately. Similarly accidents and incidents were logged and followed up as needed. Complaints and accidents logs were analysed centrally and any patterns or trends followed up with the manager to ensure continual monitoring and improvement.


About CQC inspections

We are the regulator of health and social care in England.

All providers of regulated health and social care services have a legal responsibility to make sure they are meeting essential standards of quality and safety. These are the standards everyone should be able to expect when they receive care.

The essential standards are described in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. We regulate against these standards, which we sometimes describe as "governmentstandards".

We carry out unannounced inspections of all care homes, acute hospitals and domiciliary care services in England at least once a year to judge whether or not the essential standards are being met. We carry out inspections of other services less often. All of our inspections are unannounced unless there is a good reason to let the provider know we are coming.

There are 16 essential standards that relate most directly to the quality and safety of care and these are grouped into five key areas. When we inspect we could check all or part of any of the 16 standards at any time depending on the individual circumstances of the service. Because of this we often check different standards at different times.

When we inspect, we always visit and we do things like observe how people are cared for, and we talk to people who use the service, to their carers and to staff. We also review information we have gathered about the provider, check the service's records and check whether the right systems and processes are in place.

We focus on whether or not the provider is meeting the standards and we are guided by whether people are experiencing the outcomes they should be able to expect when the standards are being met. By outcomes we mean the impact care has on the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service, and the experience they have whilst receiving it.

Our inspectors judge if any action is required by the provider of the service to improve the standard of care being provided. Where providers are non-compliant with the regulations, we take enforcement action against them. If we require a service to take action, or if we take enforcement action, we re-inspect it before its next routine inspection was due. This could mean we re-inspect a service several times in one year. We also might decide to re-inspect a service if new concerns emerge about it before the next routine inspection.

In between inspections we continually monitor information we have about providers. The information comes from the public, the provider, other organisations, and from care workers.

You can tell us about your experience of this provider on our website.


How we define our judgements

The following pages show our findings and regulatory judgement for each essential standard or part of the standard that we inspected. Our judgements are based on the ongoing review and analysis of the information gathered by CQC about this provider and the evidence collected during this inspection.

We reach one of the following judgements for each essential standard inspected.

Met this standard This means that the standard was being met in that the provider was compliant with the regulation. If we find that standards were met, we take no regulatory action but we may make comments that may be useful to the provider and to the public about minor improvements that could be made.

Action needed This means that the standard was not being met in that the provider was non-compliant with the regulation. We may have set a compliance action requiring the provider to produce a report setting out how and by when changes will be made to make sure they comply with the standard. We monitor the implementation of action plans in these reports and, if necessary, take further action.We may have identified a breach of a regulation which is more serious, and we will make sure action is taken. We will report on this when it is complete.

Enforcement action taken

If the breach of the regulation was more serious, or there have been several or continual breaches, we have a range ofactions we take using the criminal and/or civil procedures in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and relevant regulations. These enforcement powers include issuing a warning notice; restricting or suspending the services a provider can offer, or the number of people it can care for; issuing fines and formal cautions; in extreme cases, cancelling a provider or managers registration or prosecutinga manager or provider. These enforcement powers are set out in law and mean that we can take swift, targeted action where services are failing people.


How we define our judgements (continued)

Where we find non-compliance with a regulation (or part of a regulation), we state which part of the regulation has been breached. Only where there is non compliance with one or more of Regulations 9-24 of the Regulated Activity Regulations, will our report include a judgement about the level of impact on people who use the service (and others, if appropriate to the regulation). This could be a minor, moderate or major impact.

Minor impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had an impact on their health, safety or welfare or there was a risk of this happening. The impact was not significant and the matter could be managed or resolved quickly.

Moderate impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had a significant effect on their health, safety or welfare or there was a risk of this happening. The matter may need to be resolved quickly.

Major impact - people who use the service experienced poor care that had a serious current or long term impact on their health, safety and welfare, or there was a risk of this happening. The matter needs to be resolved quickly

We decide the most appropriate action to take to ensure that the necessary changes are made. We always follow up to check whether action has been taken to meet the standards.


Glossary of terms we use in this report

Essential standard

The essential standards of quality and safety are described in our Guidance about compliance: Essential standards of quality and safety. They consist of a significant numberof the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. These regulations describe theessential standards of quality and safety that people who use health and adult social care services have a right to expect. A full list of the standards can be found within the Guidance about compliance. The 16 essential standards are:

Respecting and involving people who use services - Outcome 1 (Regulation 17)

Consent to care and treatment - Outcome 2 (Regulation 18)

Care and welfare of people who use services - Outcome 4 (Regulation 9)

Meeting Nutritional Needs - Outcome 5 (Regulation 14)

Cooperating with other providers - Outcome 6 (Regulation 24)

Safeguarding people who use services from abuse - Outcome 7 (Regulation 11)

Cleanliness and infection control - Outcome 8 (Regulation 12)

Management of medicines - Outcome 9 (Regulation 13)

Safety and suitability of premises - Outcome 10 (Regulation 15)

Safety, availability and suitability of equipment - Outcome 11 (Regulation 16)

Requirements relating to workers - Outcome 12 (Regulation 21)

Staffing - Outcome 13 (Regulation 22)

Supporting Staff - Outcome 14 (Regulation 23)

Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision - Outcome 16 (Regulation 10)

Complaints - Outcome 17 (Regulation 19)

Records - Outcome 21 (Regulation 20)

Regulated activity

These are prescribed activities related to care and treatment that require registration with CQC. These are set out in legislation, and reflect the services provided.


Glossary of terms we use in this report (continued)

(Registered) Provider

There are several legal terms relating to the providers of services. These include registered person, service provider and registered manager. The term 'provider' means anyone with a legal responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of the law are carried out. On our website we often refer to providers as a 'service'.

Regulations

We regulate against the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 and the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

Responsive inspection

This is carried out at any time in relation to identified concerns.

Routine inspection

This is planned and could occur at any time. We sometimes describe this as a scheduled inspection.

Themed inspection

This is targeted to look at specific standards, sectors or types of care.


Contact us

Phone: 03000 616161

Email: [email protected]

Write to us at:

Care Quality CommissionCitygateGallowgateNewcastle upon TyneNE1 4PA

Website: www.cqc.org.uk

Copyright Copyright © (2011) Care Quality Commission (CQC). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part, free of charge, in any format or medium provided that it is not used for commercial gain. This consent is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and on proviso that it is not used in a derogatory manner or misleading context. The material should be acknowledged as CQC copyright, with thetitle and date of publication of the document specified.

1-127503773_Mill_View_Residential_and_Nursing_Home_INS1-842753583_Scheduled_01-07-2014

Documents

Transcript of 1-127503773_Mill_View_Residential_and_Nursing_Home_INS1-842753583_Scheduled_01-07-2014