Archived: Mayfield Nursing Home

Updated 10 February 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 checked 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 inspection took place on 04 and 08 January 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced and carried out by one adult social care inspector and an 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. The second day of the inspection was announced and carried out by one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. This enables us to decide if we need to respond to potential areas of concern. We also reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR provides key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements the provider plan to make. Prior to the inspection we requested information about the service from the local authority commissioners and safeguarding team, they raised no concerns about the service.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people who used the service and five family members. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) and undertook a SOFI during the course of the inspection. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.

We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, a nurse, six care staff, catering and domestic staff. We looked at records relating to the care of four people, four staff recruitment files, staff rotas, staff training records and other records relating to the running of the service.

Updated 10 February 2018

Mayfield nursing home is a ‘care home’ that provides nursing care for a maximum of 31 older people. At the time of the inspection there were 26 people 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.

There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running of 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.

We carried out this inspection on 04 and 08 January 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced and the second day was announced.

At the last inspection, in April 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People felt safe living at the service. They were protected from abuse and harm because staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Risks to people’s safety were assessed and mitigated, this included risks associated with aspects of people’s care and the environment.

The environment was clean and hygienic and smelt pleasant throughout. Staff followed good infection prevention and control practices such as the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) to help minimise the spread of infection.

Medication was managed safely. There were safe systems in place for the receipt, storage, recording and administration of medication. People received their medication at the right times and it was administered by staff who were suitably trained and underwent regular checks on their competence.

Staff were recruited safely. The suitability of staff was assessed prior to them being offered a position. This included a check on their criminal background, previous work history, skills and qualifications. There were sufficient numbers of suitably skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of people and keep them safe.

Staff received training and support for their role. New staff completed induction training to learn their role and they were provided with ongoing training in areas of health and safety and topics relevant to the needs of people. Staff received support through one to one supervisions, appraisals and staff meetings.

People were provided with food and drink to meet their needs and help them maintain a balanced diet. People were given a choice of food which was prepared in accordance with their likes, dislikes and dietary requirements set out in their care plans.

People’s healthcare needs were understood and met. Staff supported people to access appropriate healthcare services as and when they needed to. Staff recognised when there was a decline in a person’s health and wellbeing and took the appropriate action. This included prompt contact and referrals to other health and social care professionals.

People’s legal rights were understood and upheld. Staff demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and associated deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS). Decisions made on behalf of people who lacked capacity were made in accordance with legal requirements. Staff knew how to ensure each person was supported as an individual in a way that did not discriminate against them.

Some items of furniture and carpets were in need of replacing due to wear and tear. The registered provider assured us that these were being replaced as part of an ongoing programme of refurbishment. The environment had some aids including signage to help orientate and stimulate people living with dementia. The registered manager and registered provider recognised that further developments were needed to improve the environment for people living with dementia and this was ongoing.

People were treated with kindness and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were given emotional support when they were anxious or upset and staff provided this in a sensitive and compassionate way. Where people were unable to tell us about their experiences we observed they were relaxed and at ease with staff. People’s behaviour and body language showed that they felt cared for by staff.

Care plans contained personalised information about people’s individual needs and how they were to be met. They included direction and guidance for staff to follow to help ensure people received their care and support they needed and in the way they wanted. Care plans were kept under review and updated with any changes as they occurred.

People were given the opportunity to able to take part in a range of group and individual activities. Profiles detailing people’s backgrounds, life history, things of importance and personal preferences were developed. These gave staff a good insight into people’s past lives and lifestyle choices enabling them to engage people in conversations and activities of interest.

The service was well led. People and relatives all described the registered manager as open, supportive and approachable. There were regular meetings for people, family members and staff so they could share their views about the running of the service. People and their families were given information about how to complain. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.