Maycroft

Updated 2 March 2019

The inspection:

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team:

The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an inspection manager.

Service and service type:

Maycroft is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

We reviewed information we held about the service, this included information received from the provider about deaths, accidents/incidents and safeguarding alerts which they are required to send us by law. We also contacted the local authority who commission services to gather their feedback.

We briefly spoke with all five people, and observed the way staff provided support to all five people that lived at the service. We also spoke with four relatives, deputy manager, shift leader, senior and a support worker, and the registered manager. We reviewed a range of documents and records including the care records of three people, three medication administration records, two staff files and training records. We also looked at records that related to the management and quality assurance of the service.

Updated 2 March 2019

About the service: Maycroft is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to up to six younger adults that live with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection five people lived at the home.

People’s experience of using this service:

We found improvements had been made in the areas we rated as requires improvement following our previous inspection in March 2017. We also found the breaches of regulations that were issued had been met. However, we found improvements were required to ensure best interest decisions were recorded to ensure the records reflected the rationale for the decisions made on behalf of people.

People were supported by staff who were aware of the risks to them and knew how to keep them safe from harm. People appeared comfortable in staff presence and sought staff out by going over to them and holding their hand. People received their medicines as needed.

Recruitment processes were in place to ensure staff were safely recruited. Staff wore aprons and gloves to prevent the spread of infections. Systems were in place to analyse any accidents or incidents for patterns and trends, and to enable measures to be put in place to mitigate any identified risks.

Staff knew people well and had received training which provided them with the skills to support people safely and effectively. Staff felt supported in their role and were kept up to date with changes in people’s care needs. People were supported to choose what they had to eat and drink and to make healthy choices where appropriate in order to maintain a balanced diet. Staff were aware of people’s healthcare needs and how to support them to maintain good health.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. We saw staff routinely obtained people’s consent before providing support. An accessible safeguarding and complaints procedure was in place for people and their visitors to refer to if needed.

Relatives described staff as ‘caring, friendly, and dedicated’. We saw support was led by people and not by the staff, and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible.

People were supported to participate in activities that were of particular interest to them, as well as trying new opportunities.

Staff were confident the improvements made to the culture and the new training they had received had made a positive difference to the support provided to people. Staff felt the registered manager was approachable and provided good leadership and direction. Audits were completed to ensure the registered manager and provider had oversight of the service.

Quality audits were in place to ensure the registered manager and provider had oversight of the service and to ensure the service provided was meeting people’s needs. Records were not in place to support all of the best interests decisions made for people to clearly reflect the rationale for the decisions made for people. Staff were motivated and committed to ensuring people received support that met their needs and aspirations.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated as ‘Requires Improvement. (Report published 16 June 2017).

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection.

Follow up: We will monitor all intelligence received about the service to ensure the next planned inspection is scheduled accordingly.