Archived: Mayfield Care Home

We saw that care documentation was up to date and accurate and contained sufficient information to enable staff to deliver safe and effective care.

We spoke with two people who lived at the home who both told us they were happy with the care and support provided. They told us: 'The staff know all about me and I'm very happy here.' and 'I made the right decision coming here.'

We saw the environment was clean and hygienic and regular checks were carried out to ensure any improvements required were identified.

We also saw there were quality assurance systems in place to ensure records remained up to date and we spoke with three staff who confirmed the manager carried out regular audits of the care records and the results of these were discussed with them.

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

During the inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, three relative's, four care staff, two ancillary staff, the registered manager and the owner of the home. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with five people who used the service who all told us that they liked living at the home and they were treated well, in the way that they wanted. We also spoke with three relatives who told us they were happy with the care and support the staff provided to their family. Some comments included; "(My family member) is extremely well looked after", "I am happy with Mayfield" and "I'm really pleased.' We saw that staff were compassionate and kind. Our observations and the comments from people we spoke with showed us that people were treated with empathy and dignity by the staff.

Is the service safe?

The people that we spoke with us told us they felt safe.

On the day of our inspection we saw that the bedrooms and communal areas of the home were clean and odour free, however we noted that some areas of the kitchen required cleaning to minimise the risk and spread of infection. We saw a weekly audit that was designed to identify the risk of infection; however the information recorded on this did not correspond with the findings of the inspector on the day of our inspection of Mayfield Care Home. We considered that improvements were required in this area.

The Care Quality Commission has a duty to monitor activity under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure vulnerable people over the age of 18 have their human and civil rights upheld. Care home providers must make application to the local authority when it is in a person's best interests to deprive them of their liberty in order to keep them safe from harm. During the inspection we discussed the recent changes to case law in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. As a result of our discussion the manager contacted the appropriate authorities and has informed us that an application was in the process of being made. This showed us that the manager was knowledgeable of the action to take, if an application was required.

We saw that if a person required emergency first aid, there was a procedure in place to guide staff and staff had received training to enable them to support people effectively. This showed us that the home had systems in place to enable staff to respond effectively in the event of an emergency.

Is the service effective?

We saw that people who lived at Mayfield Care Home had care records that included assessments of their individual needs and risks. Each person had a support plan which contained information for care staff to enable care and treatment to be delivered in a way that met people's needs. We also saw that each person had a care plan in place which was person centred and contained risk assessments to identify and manage any risks identified. This showed us assessments were carried out to minimise any risks to people who used the service. However, during the inspection we noted that three risk assessments were not dated and a support plan required updating to reflect the person's current needs. We considered that improvements were required in this area.

Is the service responsive?

The service had systems in place to ensure that people were regularly consulted about their views and ideas on how the service should be run. This was done by means of regular discussions with people, satisfaction surveys and family meetings. We saw that if improvements were identified, these were actioned as appropriate. We spoke with three relatives who told us that the home sought their views and that they were happy with the level of involvement offered to them. We spoke with two visiting health professionals who told us that they considered the service to be responsive to people's needs and responsive to instructions. The records we viewed and the comments from people we spoke with showed us that the home responded to suggestions and feedback from people and also responded effectively to changes in people's health needs.

Is the service well led?

The service had some systems in place to ensure that areas for improvement were identified. We saw that a records audit was carried out to check that the information contained in the persons care records remained up to date and accurate. The manager told us that this was currently out of date as they had recruited a new deputy manager and this had delayed the audit process. We considered that the audit systems in place required improvement to identify and respond to any shortfalls noted.

Risk assessments provided clear instruction to staff on how to reduce and minimise risks to people who used the service.

We spoke to a visiting GP who told us: 'Staff know patients and understand needs with mental capacity, I really think they do. In respect of care, the times I have been here, I felt the care is very good. I have no concerns about the safety of residents'.

Comments from people who used the service included 'Staff are very nice and caring', 'It is very clean here, food not bad really', 'I think it is very good and very homely. They are very helpful and look after us well' and 'No concerns at all, they do well for us really.'

We found staff had received training appropriate to their roles and responsibilities.

All staff we spoke during our visit and they told us they felt supported by the provider and management in respect of their role and personal development.

We found staff had a good awareness of safeguarding issues and whistleblowing and could explain how they would raise any concerns.

We found the provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

On the whole, we found care files were up to date with accurate and relevant information which were fit for purpose.

People living in the home, or their representatives, had been asked to sign their consent to their care and support.

People who used the service had their needs assessed and care plans detailed the type of support each person received. Care records were up to date and accurate and appropriate action had been taken to keep people safe by the effective management of personal risk. A relative told us about their experience since their X moved into the home. They said, "My X has not been as agitated, not lost weight and X has their hair done regularly."

People living in the home told us they were afforded choice at mealtimes. We found that menus were well balanced and nutritious and provided people living in the home with varied diets.

A number of improvements had been made to the home since we last visited and further building work was underway to provide an additional lounge for people to use.

Staff received the training and support they needed to undertake their caring duties safely.

Mayfield had a robust system in place to continually assess, monitor and evaluate the quality of the service.