Archived: Mayfield Care Home

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service because some people had complex needs which meant they were not always able to tell us their experiences. We spoke with two people who use the service, one relative, the registered manager, four care staff and three professionals who have been involved with the service. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included, three care plans, daily care records, training records and quality management records.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because staff had been trained to recognise and act on safeguarding concerns. As some people could not tell staff if they did not feel safe, staff monitored people's behaviour to alert them to concerns. This meant safeguarding concerns were acted on in a timely fashion to keep people safe.

The service had used risk assessments to inform their support plans. Where possible, risks were addressed without limiting people's freedom and independence. Support plans clearly identified how staff should provide care and strategies to avoid anxiety and distress for the person concerned. This ensured staff had comprehensive and consistent guidance to follow when supporting people.

We found the premises were clean, tidy and safe. Staff told us urgent maintenance requests were responded to quickly. The registered manager undertook regular spot checks on the state of the premises to ensure people were not put at risk.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which apply to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Consideration of DoLS principles was reflected in people's care plans. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

Staff had current training in topics identified as mandatory by the provider. This included safeguarding, health and safety, fire safety and first aid. Training specific to the needs of the people living at the home was also provided. Staff were supported to be effective through regular meetings with their manager to discuss their needs and progress.

The service was effective because each person had a health action plan that helped staff to ensure their health needs were addressed. These documents were regularly updated. We saw appointment records that showed people had regular access to health and social care professionals. Professionals gave us positive feedback about the way staff ensured people's health needs were addressed.

Is the service caring?

The people living at the home, the relative and the professionals we spoke with gave us positive feedback about the quality of care provided. One person told us, 'Staff are kind.' A relative told us, 'staff go beyond what is expected of them'.

During our inspection we saw staff communicating with people in a respectful and caring way. People smiled and laughed when they interacted with staff. Staff involved people in decision making and made sure people were kept informed about what was happening. Staff were helped to do this as support plans contained information on assisting people to make decisions.

Is the service responsive?

People's care plans contained information on their preferences and priorities. The service was responsive because these plans were reviewed monthly to ensure changes were recorded and care adapted. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's preferences and respected their wishes.

Although there was a complaints procedure in place, staff had identified it was also necessary to observe people's behaviour as some people could not verbally share a complaint. We saw that complaints were sympathetically responded to by staff and action was taken. This showed the service responded to feedback.

Is the service well led?

The staff told us they felt the registered manager listened to them and acted on their suggestions. They felt they received good support and direction. From discussions with the registered manager it was clear that she was routinely reviewing practice and implementing learning to improve the support provided.

The service was well led because the senior staff and registered manager regularly undertook audits to check the quality of the service being provided. They then acted on the outcomes of these audits in a timely fashion.

People told us they liked living at the home. Two people called it 'my home' and one person told us 'I've been here a long time and it's been my home since it opened'.

We observed staff asking for people's consent consistently whilst providing support.

We observed care being delivered in line with people's individual care plans. People told us about the various routines and activities they were supported to do. One person told us 'I'm going on holiday in September'. Another person told us 'I had a bath this morning'.

We observed staff administering medicines in a skilled and competent manner.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and to ensure that people were able to access the community and other activities. One person told us staff were 'nice' and another person told us 'I have (staff member). I get on well with them'.

There was a complaints procedure and complaints advocate in place which ensured complaints were followed up. Staff held regular residents meetings and people had a sense of ownership of the home. We observed people raising issues and speaking freely to staff throughout the visit, who responded appropriately. One person told us 'thank you to Mayfield for this place, it's my home'.