Mayflower Care Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans were person centred in most areas and included individual preferences, likes, dislikes and favoured routines. However, people’s care plans did not always provide guidance for staff on how to support them when they were agitated and unsettled or challenging towards others. For example, a person’s care plan stated if they became agitated during personal care staff were to ensure it was documented. There was nothing to direct staff about what to do and how to support the person to be calmer. People’s care plans did not show what was normal for each person in relation to frequency of opening their bowels and what action staff should take if they had not been (such as offering more fluids, foods which are higher in fibre and medicines if required). Epilepsy care plans were in place detailing how epilepsy affects some people and detailing what action staff should take if the person had a seizure. A person’s epilepsy care plan had not been fully completed, we raised this with staff responsible for care planning and this was immediately altered to ensure staff had all the information they needed to provide safe care. A person’s care plan had not been amended in a timely manner following changes to their health and care needs. The care plan stated they only got up for 1 hour a day and they were nursed in bed. We observed the person in the lounge in the morning and sat in the dining room at lunchtime. We checked with staff and they said the person was not on bed rest, but they used to be.

Staff knew people well. They described their likes, dislikes and preferences and we observed people responding well to staff. Staff described how they supported people at their own pace. Relatives told us their loved ones’ care and support was person centred, they had consistent staff that knew them well.

Relatives told us their loved ones received personal care to meet their needs and were supported to dress appropriately. Comments included, “The staff support him with all his personal care needs, he was mobile when he first moved in but now has to use a hoist”; “The staff support him to be clean and tidy” and “They help mum with all her personal care.” A person told us, “I do things for myself, I have a good shower.”

Although the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice, the provider had not always supported continuity of care. Information was shared with staff during handover regarding any changes to people’s health or care needs. The service worked with other health professionals involved in people’s care. However, some staff told us that they were rostered to work on different floors and units rather than having a dedicated unit they worked on. They told us that the impact of this was they did not know people well and this could be problematic when they were reviewing people or supporting with professionals’ assessments such as health appointments or DoLS assessments. The management team told us after the assessment, 'Staff were rostered flexibly across different floors and units as part of a planned and managed staffing model. This approach supported safe staffing levels, appropriate skill mix, and continuity of care, particularly when covering sickness or unplanned absence, and ensured that people continued to receive safe and responsive care.In addition, rostering arrangements were designed to support staff mental health and emotional wellbeing.'

Staff told us how they supported people and their relatives. Most relatives told us, they felt staff supported people with appointments and communicated well with GPs and health specialists to ensure people received continuity of care. Some relatives told us there had sometimes been delays in seeking GP input or further advice from other healthcare professionals. Other relatives told us, “They have a link nurse that is from the practice, and they help with any needs” and “With the GP they manage that and I’m happy with that. I really like the app where I can see his notes.” A health and social care professional said,

“I encourage the home to do onward referrals, and I then find they add that person to the next weekly ward round so we can discuss and see if there is anything else that can be done. The slow responses to these are from the provider of these services, which can be a challenge for the home and for the GP practice. Onward referrals to such teams as SALT (speech and language therapy) means all are being proactive in trying to treat people in the place they feel safest and with the people who know them the most.”

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

The service had signs and way marking, to direct people to communal areas. Bedroom doors had people’s names on, which helped people locate their own room. There were information boards around the service which also contained easier to read information so that people had information about the service, staying safe, complaints, what activities were on and menu information.

Staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs for example, people who may have hearing or visual impairments. Staff shared how they provided information and communicated with different people. A person living at the service used sign language to communicate. Staff had not undertaken training in sign language and we observed they were not always able to understand what the person was communicating. The management team told us sign language training had been identified and was being rolled out to staff to enable them to meet people’s needs. To mitigate the risks of not understanding the person, staff were using a whiteboard to communicate in writing.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

We observed good practice from staff in relation to listening and involving people with their care and making decisions. The registered manager shared with us meeting records to show that they had met with people living at the service. The meeting records showed people were involved in decision making. Minutes of the meeting were available for all people living at the service, regardless of whether they had attended the meeting. People were offered informal opportunities to feedback about the service, the registered manager spent time walking round the service daily and chatting with people. The registered manager held a weekly coffee morning to meet with people, relatives and staff which gave everyone an opportunity to have discussions with the registered manager and provide feedback.

People (including those staying for a short stay as part of respite care) and their relatives were sent surveys about the service. Surveys showed mainly positive feedback from those that had responded. Surveys showed people had fed back about meal times, daily experiences and support. Some feedback showed suggestions to make things more positive. A person wanted to go out more and another person raised they would like more food. Comments included, ‘Everyone is nice to me’ and ‘My day was ok, I got the help I needed when I asked.’

People were listened to. The service had a ‘You said, we did’ board on display in the corridor which showed that people, relatives and staff had made suggestions, and these had been listened to and responded to.

Relatives utilised carehome.co.uk to share reviews of the service. Reviews were monitored by the management team and responded to. A recent review read,

‘Our lovely dad passed away in October 2025 after spending the last 18 months battling Dementia/Alzheimer's at the wonderful Mayflower Care Home. The staff there are absolutely amazing, they treated dad as they would their own parent, with the utmost dignity and compassion. They also supported the family during our visits and their kindnesses will stay in our memories forever. The regular check-ins to see if we had any concerns and the portal for overseas siblings to keep in the loop were great ways to ensure communication lines were kept open and the hilarious entertainments the staff found to keep the residents engaged were fantastic.’

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider had engaged an Alzheimer’s disease specialist to review the service and environment. As a result work was planned to increase dementia friendly environments. The garden was going to be revamped with work expected to be completed by summer 2026.

People were supported with medical appointments and follow up appointments. We observed people receiving visits from healthcare professionals during the assessment visit. People’s care records showed that they had received medical help. Relatives told us their loved one had visits from healthcare professionals. People told us they had access to the nursing staff within the service as well as visiting health professionals.

Staff gave us examples of when they had recognised people were not acting in their usual manner and the action they took. Most staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise signs of deterioration and care workers said they would report health changes to the nurse on duty if necessary. People were supported to maintain contact with their friends and families. We observed people receiving visits from friends and families during the assessment.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had a clear policy in place in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion. The provider set out in this policy a number of clear actions the service will take. The provider’s website stated,

‘Our ethos of high ethical standards, transparency, and an ultra-caring approach to both residents and staff, together with our values of care, family, honesty, and commitment, are all firmly embedded within how we support those in our care every single day. We actively foster a culture of respect and empathy, ensuring every individual feels valued, heard, and supported throughout their journey with us. This dedication to excellence drives us to continuously improve and provide an environment where trust and compassion are at the heart of all that we do.’

We observed that this was embedded into practice in the service. People’s care and support was tailored to their own needs and wishes. Relatives told us they would recommend the service. A relative said, “I’m happy with the placement. I have a good rapport with the staff. I would recommend the home.”

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.

The provider had systems and processes in place to understand the diverse health and care needs of people living at the service. Some people had a DNACPR (Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation) form in place. This is an advanced decision not to attempt CPR. It is not about other treatments or care. Some people had ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care Treatment) forms in place. A ReSPECT form records a person's wishes about a range of care and treatments.

End of life care plans were as comprehensive as the person wanted it to be and plans were clear in cases where people had chosen not to discuss this element of their care. Staff told us that they worked closely with the local hospice to ensure people had effective support and pain relief to ensure people had dignified, pain free deaths. Medicines were available to keep them as comfortable as possible. A healthcare professional told us, “The nurses are quick to spot any changes in a resident’s health and if they have any palliative concerns, they contact me straight away.” The service had received compliments from relatives about care including end of life support. One read, ‘I would like to thank you all very much indeed for the excellent professional and loving care across every area of need that you have given to [person] during the past 10 months. Also, for the kind support and insight into dementia care I have benefitted from. I have always enjoyed my visits and found you to be very welcoming, approachable and communicative.’