We carried out a review of the data available to us about 2a & 2b Mayfair on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about 2a & 2b Mayfair, you can give feedback on this service.
2a and 2b Mayfair is a residential care home (without nursing) which is registered to provide a service for up to ten people with learning disabilities and other associated difficulties. At the time of inspection the service was providing support to ten people aged between 29 and 52 years old. 2a and 2b Mayfair is two homes that are connected by a corridor. People who have more complex behavioural needs reside in one side of the service.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
Staff had been trained in safeguarding people and health and safety policies and procedures. Their knowledge, skill and understanding contributed to keeping people, themselves and others as safe as possible. People continued to be supported by suitable staffing ratios.
People's health and well-being needs were assessed and met by staff who responded very effectively to people's changing needs. The service worked very closely with health and other professionals to ensure they met people's health and well-being needs to a very high standard.
The service understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty
Safeguards (DoLS) and consent which related to the people in their care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. There were the policies and systems in the service to support this practice.
The caring, committed and enthusiastic staff team continued to meet people's needs with kindness and respect. People’s privacy and dignity were promoted at all times. The service was exceptionally responsive to peoples communication needs in a person centred way.
People received good care from a well-led service. Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. The registered manager was experienced and qualified and listened and responded to people, staff and others. Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager and said they were listened to if concerns were raised.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The service provides residential support to people who require personal care, and have a primary diagnosis of Learning Disabilities and associated behavioural needs. Although registered to provide support to ten people, the location currently has seven people using the service. 2a and 2b Mayfair, are two homes that are connected by a corridor. People who have more complex behavioural needs reside in one portion of the home, whilst people with more health related care needs reside in the other.
The home is required to have a registered manager, and has had the same manager in post since 2013. 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.
People were kept safe by a staff team who had an understanding of the importance of reporting concerns promptly. Systems were implemented to recruit suitable staff to work at the service, whilst protecting people against the risk of abuse. Sufficient numbers of trained and experienced staff were deployed in each wing to ensure people’s needs were met.
People were supported by staff who were trained and competent in the administration and management of medicines. Medicines were safely secured and managed. Protocols were in place to ensure PRN (as required) medicines were only given when needed.
Good caring practice was observed. Relatives of people using the service reported that staff were caring in their approach, and supportive of their family members. People and their family members were involved appropriately in the planning and reviewing of care related documents. Care plans were personalised, focusing in the individual and how to meet their needs effectively.
People who could not make specific decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected. People’s care plans showed that when decisions had been made about their care, where they lacked capacity, these had been made in the person’s best interests. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The DoLS provide legal protection for vulnerable people who are, or may become, deprived of their liberty.
People received care and support from a staff team who had the appropriate skills and knowledge to care for them. Staff received comprehensive induction, training and support from experienced members of staff. They felt supported by the registered manager and said they were listened to if concerns were raised.
The quality of the service was monitored regularly by the registered manager and the Operations Manager. A thorough quality assurance audit was completed quarterly with an action plan being generated, and followed up on during identified timescales. Feedback was encouraged from people, visitors and stakeholders and used to improve and make changes to the service.
We told the provider to produce an action plan and make improvements to meet the essential standards. At our follow up inspection on 20 March 2014 we found that the provider had made the necessary improvements and people were receiving care that met their needs.
During our inspection in May 2013 we found that the provider had failed to meet the essential standards of quality and safety in relation to assessing and monitoring people's care and welfare. This meant that the provider had not effectively identified, assessed and managed risks to people.
We told the provider to produce an action plan and make improvements to meet the essential standards. At our inspection on 20 March 2014 we found that the provider had made the necessary improvements. They were now effectively operating systems which assessed and monitored the quality of their service, which protected people from receiving unsafe or inappropriate care.
However we found that people's needs were not always assessed and their care and treatment was not always delivered in line with their care and support plans. We looked at two care reviews and saw that the recommended treatment and support plans had not been implemented. We spoke with relatives of people using the service who told us they were happy with the variety of activities available. One parent told us, 'The care is great. He's really happy and loves the staff. The manager is fantastic and rings me all the time to let me know what's going on.'
We saw records which showed that medicines were effectively administered.Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of the different medicines taken by people they supported and how they chose to take them.
People were cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff because the provider had an effective recruitment and selection process.
The provider had not protected people against the risk of inappropriate care by effectively assessing and monitoring the quality of the service. Daily diaries of people contained numerous gaps where care and treatment provided had not been recorded.
Relatives of people using the service told us they were very happy with the suitability and stimulation of activities available. One parent told us, 'We're thoroughly delighted. The staff are brilliant. He gets taken out four or five times a week and he loves the new sensory room'. Another said, 'The staff do very well and you can see he is happy. He comes home quite often but is always happy to go back'.
A recent incident involving a disagreement between members of staff had been appropriately investigated. The deputy manager told us that they were aware of other work related disputes. S/he was organising exercises to improve team work. During our inspection we found no evidence that staff disputes had directly compromised the level of care.
We examined five staff files and found that all staff received a comprehensive induction relevant to their workplace and role. This meant they were able to deliver care and treatment to service users safely and to the required standard.
We found the provider had audit processes which effectively assessed and monitored the quality of service being provided.