Mayfield Road

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We assessed all the quality statements within this key question. Our rating for this question has improved to Good. Different communication aids were available to support people’s communication needs, however, we observed that these were not always used effectively. Nevertheless, improvements had been made and people were receiving person centred care. There were no barriers to accessing the service or being supported to access other specialist services when required. Staff took account of people’s individual needs and provided support in line with their protected characteristics. A complaints procedure was in place and people and relatives were encouraged to speak to the registered manager.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s support needs were assessed aiming to achieve effective outcomes for their care. Regular reviews were planned to discuss the care delivery and changes necessary to people’s health, support needs and leisure activities. People got involved in the reviews as much as they wished to and had support from their family members where they needed it.

Staff offered choices to people tailored to their individual abilities to make decisions. Staff’s comments included, “You give residents 2 choices, and they will choose. For example, what do you want to wear today, but we need to guide them if it's cold or warm” and “We talk to the service users and ask them if needed. Those that can't talk, we show things to them.” A family member said, “As far as I know, [my relative] gets a choice.’

People’s preferences were identified, and appropriate staff were available to support them. People made choices around their daily routines, including when they wanted to get up in the morning. Gender of staff was considered where it was important to the person and their care delivery.

Continuity of care was important to people and this was facilitated by the service. Family members told us that people were supported by staff who knew them well. Comments included, “[Staff] manage [my relative’s] needs” and “There’s particular members of staff [my relative] is used to. They’ve got to know him well.”

Changes were made to staff allocations making sure all staff knew the people being supported by the service. Staff previously only worked with the same people, but it was decided to use a rota to ensure everyone can take tasks on when needed. The registered manager told us that people were less anxious now as they got to know all the staff working at the service.

Health professionals told us they had a good relationship with the staff at the service and there was good communication to ensure people received the care and support they required.

Clear records were maintained of any specialist healthcare appointments so staff were aware of any advice or treatment provided. Staff also maintained seizure records so these could be used to inform hospital neurology appointments, and continuity of epilepsy care.

People’s individualities were celebrated making sure they were able to express themselves in the way that suited them. People made themselves understood using their body language and eye contact. Family members told us that staff knew people well which helped them to anticipate people’s care and support needs effectively where people with complex care needs had limited communication skills. A family member told us, “I think [my relative] is happy there, even though he can’t speak.”

Staff were provided with guidelines to support their communication with people. Staff used simple language and short sentences to help people understand the information provided. However, people did not always benefit from the non-verbal communication aids being used at the service. We saw visual cues such as photographs and symbols being available to help people know what was likely to happen during the day but in some cases the pictures had not been used when necessary or were too small or difficult to understand as to what they represented. A family member told us, “[My relative] can’t choose, she has to see it first. It’s no good going to her and asking her. [Staff] could use pictures and not keep asking me.” This was discussed with the management team who took immediate action to ensure that people had access to information in formats they could understand.

Policies and procedures were in place to adhere to the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and ensure information was provided in a way that was understandable and meaningful to people using the service.

People, and those important to them, could raise concerns and complaints easily and staff supported them to do so. Family members told us, “I would definitely say if I had a complaint. I’d email [the registered manager]. A few months back there was [a complaint], I can’t remember exactly now but it was sorted” and “I more likely give feedback for the home by email.”

The service treated all concerns and complaints seriously. The management team were aware of the complaints procedure and followed guidelines making sure the complaints raised were addressed and responded to in good time. The registered manager told us, “We acknowledge mistakes, but can't fix everything overnight. It's an on-going process.”

A complaints policy and procedure were in place. No complaints had been received since the new registered manager had been appointed. People and relatives were encouraged to speak with them about any concerns or worries so they could be dealt with promptly.

People had access to healthcare services when they needed it. Healthcare professionals were also requested to visit people at the home where it was identified that attending an appointment could cause a person distress.

Staff knew when they had to call emergency services. They were provided with training in relation to early recognition of illness. This resulted in healthcare professionals being contacted for support because changes in a person’s condition were recognised quickly by staff. The registered manager told us, “It's important that staff recognise their limitations and call paramedics when needed. It's the same for me even though I am a nurse by background.”

Partner agencies told us staff took account of people’s individual needs and that people were treated equally.

There were processes in place to ensure equity in access to the service. Clear admission criteria were in place that did not discriminate against people’s protected characteristics.

Regular family contact was encouraged and supported by the service. Family members told us how they regularly visited the service and felt welcomed to do so. Comments included, ‘We’re there every week. We’re not too far away and sometimes go unannounced, we’ve not had any issues” and “We’re now able to visit twice a week. We go to the garden centre, to the shops or have lunch.”

Staff were aware of confidentiality principles. Personal and sensitive information about people was only shared on a need-to-know basis and when necessary. A staff member told us, “We can't talk outside of this place about the service users or share their personal information.”

Processes were in place to ensure people’s individual needs were identified and respected. Care plans were in place which took account of people’s protected characteristics.

People received support to plan their quality-of-life outcomes and aspirations. People’s key workers helped them to set their goals and understand how they could be achieved. This was in relation to learning new everyday living skills, developing interests, visiting places and socialising in the community.

People received support to discuss their end of life wishes where they wanted to do so. The registered manager told us that such information was included in people’s care plans when they were ready to plan and make a record of their end-of-life care.

At the time of our assessments people weren’t nearing the end of their life, however, there were processes in place to discuss this with people and their families should that be appropriate.