Mayflower House

Updated 23 March 2018

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

This comprehensive inspection took place on the 26 and 27 February 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team was made up of two inspectors and one expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held on the service. We also reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) which is a document providers can tell us what they are doing well and how they aim to improve.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people and four visitors. We also sat with people at lunch on both days and spoke with them. We reviewed the care of four people in detail, speaking with them where we could and checked they were receiving their care as planned. We observed how staff and people interacted with people in the lounge and dining room.

We also spoke with six staff and checked three staff personnel records. We reviewed the staffing, staff training and how the registered manager was ensuring staff were supported and competent in their role. During the inspection the provider and registered manager were present to answer our questions. We spoke to one GP during the inspection.

We checked how the registered manager and provider were continuing to ensure the quality of the service and safety of the equipment and building.

We left questionnaires for family and visitors who could not be present during the inspection to fill in and received eight of these back.

Updated 23 March 2018

Mayflower House is residential care home for 33 older people living with dementia, a mental health diagnosis, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. On the days we inspected 32 people were living at the service.

People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

A registered manager was employed to manage the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. They were supported in this role by a team leader known as ‘matron’.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

Why the service is rated Good.

People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Where people found it difficult to express themselves, staff showed patience and understanding. A relative told us, “The home presents an excellent, welcoming atmosphere, always calm and relaxed - the residents seem content, rarely displaying any anxiety” and another said, “Staff treat people very kindly at all times. They can always be heard addressing people in a nice way and with a good attitude.”

There were systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. These included a robust recruitment process and making sure staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. There were adequate numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.

People received effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being and made sure they had access to other healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. People’s medicines were safely administered and managed.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and they were able to make choices about their day to day routines. People had access to a range of organised and informal activities which provided them with mental and social stimulation.

People could be confident that at the end of their lives they would be cared for with kindness and compassion and their comfort would be maintained.

People said they would be comfortable to make a complaint and were confident action would be taken to address their concerns. The registered manager and provider treated complaints as an opportunity to learn and improve.

The home was well led by an experienced registered manager and management team. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, seek people’s views and make on-going improvements. A relative said, “We feel the service delivers the best quality of care.”

Further information is in the detailed findings below.