You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 24 February 2016

This was an unannounced inspection, carried out on 7 September 2015.

Mayfield's is a purpose-built single storey home which provides care for a maximum of 46 older people with a diagnosis of dementia. The service is located in the Overpool area less than two miles from Ellesmere Port town centre. The service consists of three wings called Rosebank, Bluebell and Greenacres which are located off a main central lounge. Each wing has its own separate lounge/dining area with domestic scale kitchen facilities and a range of shared bathroom/toilet facilities. All bedrooms are single with en -suite facilities. There are car parking facilities outside of the building and a large garden which is accessible to all people throughout the year.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

We last inspected this location in November 2013 and we found that the registered provider met all the regulations we reviewed.

People were safe. Staff understood what is meant by abuse and the different forms it can take Staff knew the process for reporting any concerns they had and for ensuring people were protected from abuse. Staff told us they would not hesitate to raise concerns and they felt confident that they would be dealt with appropriately. Family members told us they had no concerns about their relative’s safety. They commented; “There are always plenty of staff to support [my relative] and I know they are safe here”.

Staff were caring and they always treated people with kindness and respect. Observations showed that staff were mindful of people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged people to maintain their independence. Relatives and visitors told us that they had no concerns about the care. They said they had always been made to feel welcome and part of a family when visiting.

People’s needs were assessed and planned for and personalised in order to how best to meet people’s needs. People’s wishes, preferences and beliefs were reflected in the care plans. Care plans were person centred, detailed and reviews always promoted the involvement of the person or other important people such as family members. Staff worked well with external health and social care professionals ensure people received the care and support they needed. People were referred onto the appropriate service when concerns about their health or wellbeing were noted.

Robust recruitment processes were followed and there were sufficient qualified, skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Staff received support through supervision and team meetings which enabled them to discuss any matters, such as their work, training needs or areas of development. There was a well-developed programme of planned training which was relevant to the work staff carried out and the needs of the people who used the service. All new staff at the service completed an in- depth induction programme before they supported any people on a one to one basis at the service.

Policies and procedures were in place to guide staff in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager had a good knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and their role and responsibility linked to this. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and were able to show an understanding of the key principles when asked.

People received their medication as prescribed and staff had completed competency training in the administration and management of medication. Medication administration records (MAR) were appropriately signed and coded when medication was given.

The service was well- managed by a person described as “supportive and approachable”. Systems were in place to check on the quality of the service. Records were regularly completed in line with the registered provider’s own timescales. We were notified as required about incidents and events which had occurred at the service.

The service was accessible, clean, safe and free from unpleasant odours. Staff were able to describe their responsibilities for ensuring people were protected against any environmental hazards. Fire safety was well- managed and all relevant Health and Safety checks were appropriately completed by a competent person.

Inspection areas



Updated 24 February 2016

The service was safe

Risk management plans and assessments were regularly reviewed and updated. This ensured that people were kept safe and risks were minimised.

Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from harm or abuse. There was a whistle blowing policy in place and staff knew how to report concerns

The provider used safe recruitment practices and there were enough skilled and experienced staff to ensure people were safe and cared for.



Updated 24 February 2016

The service was effective

People received support from staff who had completed appropriate training to undertake their role.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care. Staff had an understanding of and acted in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This ensured that people’s rights were protected in relation to making decisions about their care and treatment.

People had access to relevant health care professionals and received appropriate interventions in order to maintain good health.



Updated 24 February 2016

The service was caring

People and their families felt staff treated them with dignity and respect at all times.

People’s decisions were respected and staff encouraged independence in all areas of support and care. People’s dignity and privacy was maintained at all times.

People received care and support from staff that knew them well.



Updated 24 February 2016

The service was responsive

People received personalised care from staff. Care plans provided information to guide staff and were reviewed regularly.

People had access to a range of activities and could choose where and how they wanted to spend their day.

The registered manager sought feedback from people and made changes as a result. An effective complaints procedure was in place.



Updated 24 February 2016

The service was well led

People and staff spoke highly of the registered manager, who was approachable and supportive.

There was an open and transparent culture in the home.

There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.