You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

We inspected Mais House on the 28 August 2017 and the 3 September 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

Mais House is a 'care home'. 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.

Mais House provides accommodation, personal and nursing care for up to 54 older people living with a range of physical health problems, such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, strokes and cancer. There were also people who were now living with early stages of dementia and those who were receiving end of life care. There were 46 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

At a comprehensive inspection in 28 and 30 October and 02 November 2015, the overall rating for this service was Inadequate and it was placed into special measures by the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Following the inspection, we received an action plan which set out what actions were to be taken to achieve compliance by May 2016. During our inspection on 22 and 24 June 2016, we looked to see if improvements had been made. We found that the breaches of regulation had been met but needed time to be embedded in to everyday care delivery and Mais House therefore was rated as requires improvement. We inspected Mais House in August 2017 to see if the improvements had been sustained. We found that whilst the necessary improvements had been sustained, it was identified that whilst people’s health needs were monitored but not all were effectively managed and monitored.

We undertook this comprehensive inspection to look at all aspects of the service and to check that the provider had followed their action plan and confirm that the service had sustained the improvements. We found improvements had been made and sustained and the overall rating for Mais House has been changed to good.

The service had 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 legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the associated regulations on how the service is run.

People felt safe living at Mais House. We were told, “I am safe and very happy,” and “I am looked after and still as independent as I can be.” Risks associated with people's care had been appropriately

assessed. Medicines were managed and administered in a safe manner. There were sufficient staff available to ensure people received person centred care. Staff were safely recruited. Systems and processes were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse.

Staff had received regular training, supervision and an annual appraisal to support them to provide effective care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People had choice around what they ate and were supported to maintain good health.

We observed kind and caring interaction between people and staff. People living in the home and their

relatives praised the caring nature of the care staff and registered manager. People were supported to

increase their independence and maintain strong links with their families. People were involved in planning their care.

Care plans were person centred, detailed and updated as and when people's care needs changed. People were supported to lead active and fulfilling lives and went on regular daytrips. Systems were in place to manage complaints. People and relatives told us they were happy with ‘Everything about Mais House.’ Quality assurance processes were in place to monitor the quality of care delivered. The registered manager worked in partnership with external health and social care professio

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

Mais House was safe

Measures were put in place where possible to reduce or eliminate risks. Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Comprehensive staff recruitment procedures were followed. There were enough staff to meet people's individual needs.

Staff had received training on safeguarding adults and were confident they could recognise abuse and knew how to report it.

Visitors were confident that their loved ones were safe and supported by the staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

Mais House has improved to Good.

People were supported to maintain good health and were supported to access health professionals.

Staff received regular training, supervisions and an annual appraisal.

People were supported to eat and drink. They had a choice of what that wanted to eat.

The service complied with The Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

Mais House was caring.

People's dignity was protected and staff offered assistance discretely when it was needed.

Staff provided the support people wanted, by respecting their choices and enabling people to make decisions about their care.

People were enabled and supported to access the community and maintain relationships with families and friends

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

Mais House was responsive.

People's preferences and choices were respected and support was planned and delivered with these in mind.

Group and individual activities were decided by people living in the home and regularly reviewed by them.

A complaints procedure was in place. People and visitors knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint but also said they had no reason to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 October 2018

Mais house has improved to good.

The registered manager, staff and provider encouraged people, their relatives and friends to be involved in developing the service.

A quality assurance and monitoring system was in place. The

registered manager used this to identify areas that could

improve.

Feedback was sought from people through regular meetings and from relatives, friends and health and social care professionals through satisfaction questionnaires.