Archived: Mayfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans did not always contain sufficient information about their physical, mental, emotional and social needs or risks to their safety. For example, one person was high risk of falls. Their care plan identified some strategies to support them but did not consider important issues such as their health conditions or visual problems which may impact on this. The registered manager told us they were aware improvements were needed and had already made plans for a new coordinator role to support with this.

Most people we spoke with were positive about the support they received. In some cases, staff had worked with families and acted in consultation to support people in an individualised way. One person commented, “I get up and go to bed when I want to. I feel that I can chat with the staff and ask them anything”. However, in other examples relatives told us they did not always feel they had been fully involved in the development of care plans. We were told, “They haven’t really discussed [name’s] care plan with me. I'm not really aware of it and I don't think that I've seen it.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

People were living with various physical and mental health conditions, including living with dementia. However, the provider had not ensured the care was fully supportive. There were shortfalls for people in relation to care and the environment.

The registered manager had however been working with health care professionals and staff, to take actions which reduced unnecessary hospital admissions. Staff provided an emergency pack containing important information in case people needed to be transferred to hospital.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Care plans took account of people’s communication needs. There were examples where staff took people’s needs into account. Staff supported a person with hearing loss to communicate using their I-pad. The provider had produced a pictorial menu, to support people to make effective meal choices. The registered manager told us information could be provided to people in accessible formats and translated where required. For example, the complaints procedure had been translated to meet a person’s specific needs.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints procedure. However, this was not on display when we first arrived. Where complaints had been made, the registered manager investigated these with openness and transparency, providing apologies where necessary.

Relatives told us staff regularly communicated with them. One relative told us, “I have no worries or complaints. Communication is very good, and the care couldn’t be better for [name].” However, review meetings to enable people and their relatives to discuss their care and support needs had not always been completed. The registered manager told us this was an area they were addressing, and meetings were being planned.

Relative meetings were held once a quarter and the registered manager encouraged people to share their views. The provider also undertook annual surveys to gather people’s feedback. However, where an issue had been raised at the previous survey, this had not been followed up further. The registered manager agreed to address this.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Whilst people had access to care and support, we were not assured they always had access to this when they needed it due to the deployment and skill of some staff.

The registered manager told us regular meetings with a local GP practice were due to commence, to help improve communication and responses to people’s health needs. They were in liaison with a local dentist to access support for people’s oral care needs.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The environment was not always tailored to meet people’s various needs. Aspects of the building were not in line with guidance on dementia friendly environments. Signage was not in place to guide people around the building and people’s names were not always displayed on bedroom doors to help them identify their bedroom. The lighting on the 1st floor could be disorienting for people living with dementia. Whilst some bedrooms were personalised with people’s belongings, others felt bare, with limited personalisation.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s care plans included information about their last wishes and preferences. End of life care plans were in place and staff discussed these with people if they wished. They took account of people’s spiritual needs and family’s needs. Staff had received training and support to provide effective care from a local end of life partnership.