Archived: Mayfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Overall, we received positive feedback about the way staff treated people. People told us, “The staff are very helpful, very kind, I have no reason to complain about anything here really" and "I am comfortable being here and feel safe. The staff are all very nice."

People were supported by familiar staff who appeared to have good relationships with them. From our observations staff were kind and encouraging with people. They were respectful and chatted to people whilst providing support and assistance.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care plans contained information about people’s personal and work histories, as well as their interests and hobbies. Information about people’s spirituality and religious beliefs were also included. Whilst some care plans contained information about their preferences, this was inconsistent. We received mixed feedback about the support people received. Some people were positive. For example, a relative told us how staff had made adjustments to meet the person’s specific needs. Another person told us, "I think all the staff know me well and I know a lot of them. Mostly they are very caring and helpful."

However, some feedback indicated people’s preferences weren’t always considered. For example, a relative explained their relative was private and preferred to receive personal care from certain staff, but this was not included in their care pan. Another relative told us they didn’t think staff fully understood their relative’s needs.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People’s care plans referred to supporting people’s choices and provided guidance about how to support their independence. However, where they identified objectives relating to people’s recreational needs, these were all very similar and did not include meaningful engagement for individuals, such as how staff could offer stimulation and support people’s wellbeing, especially for those living with dementia.

During our visits, we did not observe any activities taking place, although we noted the activity coordinator was absent at the time. We observed an activities planner and people told us they had recently enjoyed a summer fayre. People’s views were mixed about the activities on offer. People commented, "Every day the girls try to do some activity or other and it’s up to us if we join in" and “I don't really join in with much, it’s not my scene anymore." There was an outdoor seating and BBQ area, where birthday celebrations had been held. The registered manager told us they had identified the need to make improvements in this area, and a second activity person had been recruited to support and to offer activities across 7 days.

Some people told us staff respected their wishes and choices, however in some cases people were not provided with a choice. For example, records indicated staff had assisted a person to bed even though they did not want to go and eventually they accepted. Another person told us they were unhappy about eating their meal in the lounge rather than the dining room.

People were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones. We observed various visitors throughout of site visits and they told us they were made to feel welcome.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed staff who were responsive to people, some had built effective relationships and understood people’s needs. One person told us, “I am comfortable with the staff and can ask them anything. Sometimes if they are busy, they say they will come back in a bit but to give them their due, they always do.”

However, in other cases we were concerned staff did not always respond effectively to people to ease their discomfort or distress, especially where people were living with dementia. Some people who presented with distressed behaviour appeared frustrated and agitated. Whilst staff were patient, the provider had not ensured all staff were sufficiently skilled to respond to people effectively.

Some people did not have call bells or sensor mats placed effectively. One person required a call bell to hand when they were in bed, on 2 occasions we saw they did not have this in place. Another person seated in their bedroom did not have access to a call bell to hand, and their sensor mat was away from them, meaning staff would not be alerted if they moved. The person said they would shout if they needed staff, but it was not always possible for staff to hear them in-between checks, from the 1st floor.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Overall, staff told us they felt supported in their roles. The registered manager took account of staff health and wellbeing needs and had made adjustments to support them where necessary. The provider recognised staff through an “Employee of the month” award scheme. A staff member commented, “I love my job.”

Staff were given the opportunity to share their views in staff meetings. However, staff had not always been given the opportunity to discuss any development needs or other issues as part of a supervision or appraisal meetings, as these were behind.