Archived: 45 Mayfield Park North

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

At our last inspection in March 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection, the service remained Good.

There were some difficulties at the time of our inspection with relationships and dynamics between people living at the home. This had led to people reporting they didn't always feel safe. However the registered manager was aware of this and working with other professionals to manage the situation and ensure that people were safe.

People received safe support with their medicines. Those people who were managing their own medicines had undergone an assessment to ensure they were safe to do so.

At the time of our visit there were two permanent members of staff in post; a number of staff had recently left their posts for various reasons. Recruitment was under way and the registered manager was using consistent bank staff and agency staff to cover the necessary shifts. Staff who were lone working were able to contact senior staff on call if they needed to.

Staff told us they were well supported with training and supervision to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. Training included safeguarding, medicines and equality and diversity.

There was nobody in the home with a DoLS authorisation in place; we observed how people went out as they pleased. Staff were aware of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and gave examples of how they put it in to practice.

There were clear plans in place to support people's mental health needs and these were reviewed regularly to ensure they were reflective of people's current needs.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and treated people respectfully. People's independence was encouraged and supported. People were able to be involved in planning their own care and running of the service.

People were able to complain and make their views known if they needed to. There was a process in place and we viewed examples of complaints that had been investigated and responded to.

Staff were positive about the support they received from the registered manager and felt able to raise their concerns when necessary.

There were effective systems in place to manage the quality of the service provided.

Staff understood that everybody living at the home had capacity and were able to make their own decisions about how they lived their life. They understood and protected people's right to refuse care or treatment.

Each person had their care needs assessed and an individualised person centred care plan. Individual risk assessments had been carried out and plans to support people with risks had been developed. Where risks or care needs had changed records had been updated to reflect these changes.

The home was clean and smelled fresh. Improvements had been made to the home's infection control systems and there was now a robust and thorough system in place.

People were supported to manage their own medicines but where additional help was needed the home had safe systems in place to manage medicines.

Staff training and supervision took place on a regular basis and records were kept to ensure this was happening.

There was an effective quality assurance system in place to monitor the quality of the service. Where improvements needed were identified the improvements were carried out.

We found 45 Mayfield Park to be homely and centred around the needs and wishes of the people who lived there. It was a small home for just four people and three people had lived there for more than ten years. People had been involved in decisions about decoration and how they would like their rooms to be painted.

People's preferences were respected and they had been involved in planning their care.

Bathrooms and toilets in the home were in poor condition and, due to the deterioration of flooring and sealant, posed a potential infection control risk. Staff had not received safeguarding training for several years and some other important training needed to be updated. However, the manager had identified these shortfalls and had begun to take action to address this.