We carried out a review of the data available to us about Mayflower House 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 Mayflower House, you can give feedback on this service.
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.
A registered manager was employed to manage the service. 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. They were supported in this role by a team leader known as ‘matron’.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and 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.
.
Why the service is rated Good.
People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. People were supported by staff who were kind and caring. Where people found it difficult to express themselves, staff showed patience and understanding. A relative told us, “The home presents an excellent, welcoming atmosphere, always calm and relaxed - the residents seem content, rarely displaying any anxiety” and another said, “Staff treat people very kindly at all times. They can always be heard addressing people in a nice way and with a good attitude.”
There were systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people. These included a robust recruitment process and making sure staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. There were adequate numbers of staff available to meet people’s needs in a timely manner.
People received effective care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being and made sure they had access to other healthcare professionals according to their individual needs. People’s medicines were safely administered and managed.
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.
The service was responsive to people’s needs and they were able to make choices about their day to day routines. People had access to a range of organised and informal activities which provided them with mental and social stimulation.
People could be confident that at the end of their lives they would be cared for with kindness and compassion and their comfort would be maintained.
People said they would be comfortable to make a complaint and were confident action would be taken to address their concerns. The registered manager and provider treated complaints as an opportunity to learn and improve.
The home was well led by an experienced registered manager and management team. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, seek people’s views and make on-going improvements. A relative said, “We feel the service delivers the best quality of care.”
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection took place on 4 and 5 November 2015 and was unannounced. Mayflower House provides care and accommodation for up to 33 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. On the day of the inspection 33 people lived at the home. A & L Care Homes Limited owns Mayflower House and has another service in Plymouth.
The service had 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.
People and staff were busy and enjoying each other’s company and the service had a calm and relaxed atmosphere. Comments included; “Staff are kind and caring.” People said they were happy living there.
People and their relatives were happy with the care staff provided. Professionals and relatives said the service knew people well and the staff were knowledgeable and competent to meet people’s needs.
People were supported and encouraged to make their own decisions and choices whenever possible in their day to day lives. People had their privacy and dignity maintained. Staff were observed supporting people with patience and kindness.
People were protected by safe recruitment procedures. Staff were supported with an induction and ongoing training programme to develop their skills and staff competency was assessed. Everyone we spoke with felt there were sufficient staff on duty. However people, relatives and staff felt a designated laundry staff would benefit the service.
People had access to healthcare professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment to meet their health care needs such as GPs and district nurses. Professionals confirmed staff followed the guidance they provided. This ensured people received the care they needed to remain safe and well, for example people had regular visits by district nurses to change dressings.
People’s medicines were managed safely. Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely. Senior staff administered medicines and had received training and confirmed they understood the importance of safe administration and management of medicines.
The registered manager and staff had sought and acted on advice where they thought people’s freedom was being restricted. This helped to ensure people’s rights were protected. Applications were made and advice sought to help safeguard people and respect their human rights. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training, they displayed a good knowledge on how to report concerns and were able to describe the action they would take to protect people against harm. Staff were confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated. People who were able to told us they felt safe.
People were supported to maintain a healthy, balanced diet. People told us they enjoyed their meals and observed mealtimes did not feel rushed.
People’s care records were computerised and of a high standard. People’s care records were comprehensive and detailed people’s preferences.
People’s risks were considered, well-managed and regularly reviewed to keep people safe. Where possible, people had choice and control over their lives and were supported to engage in activities within the home. Records were updated to reflect people’s changing needs. People and their families were involved in the planning of their care.
People and staff described the registered manager as being supportive and approachable. Staff talked positively about their jobs and took pride in their work. Visiting professionals and staff confirmed the registered manager made themselves available and were very good.
The manager had an ethos of honesty and transparency. This reflected the requirements of the duty of candour. The duty of candour is a legal obligation to act in an open and transparent way in relation to care and treatment.
People’s opinions were sought formally and informally. Audits were conducted to ensure the quality of care and environmental issues were identified promptly. Accidents and safeguarding concerns were investigated and, where there were areas for improvement, these were shared for learning.
We saw people's privacy and dignity being respected at all times. We saw and heard staff speak to people in a way that demonstrated a good understanding by staff of people's choices and preferences. One person said, 'I get up when I want, and always with a cup of tea'. The visiting professional said, 'They are supporting one person who is unwell very well'.
Staff we spoke with were clear about the actions they would take should they have any concerns about people's welfare.
We looked at care records for three people. We spoke to staff about the care given, looked at records relating to them, met with them and observed staff working with them.
We saw that people's care records described their needs and how those needs were met. We saw that people's mental capacity had been assessed to determine whether they were able to make particular decisions about their lives.
During our visit to the home we saw sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of people living in the home. Not all staff agreed that the number of staff on duty were sufficient. We spoke with most of the staff working during our visit.
We saw that Mayflower House had a complaints procedure available and documentation of complaints dealt with.
We spoke to relatives during visit. They told us that they were very impressed with the care and support provided. The relative was happy with the progress of his mother.They had no complaints and told us that staff were good at communicating with families. They told us that they have regular meetings with the registered manager. They told us that they were delighted with the standards of the home. We reviewed people's folders during visit.
We spoke with staff who were happy with their work. Staff felt supported and had opportunities to progress. One staff member told us that that she wanted to complete her nurse training. She had attended training and had completed her NVQ Level 2. Staff told us that they enjoyed working with people and had good rapport with them. We reviewed staff documents during visit.
We spoke with three people living at the home and one visitor in private. We also sat in the lounge for some while chatting with people in a group and observing them and staff.
Staff told us how they respect people's privacy when helping them with personal care needs. We heard staff speaking with people in a kindly, friendly way. People that we spoke with confirmed that staff always treated them with respect.
One person living at the home told us that staff knew what their needs were and what they liked so they didn't need to keep asking them what they wanted.
People told us that there are always activities available for them to participate in. These may be bingo, outings, entertainment or watching DVDs in the home's cinema. Some people told us they like to spend most of their time in their rooms watching TV or reading. One person told us that staff often sit and chat with them about their past life, while another told us they would like staff to spend more time with them.
People told us that the food was very good and that there was always a choice on the menu or an alternative if they didn't like either of the choices.
One person told us that they felt "safe, comfortable and well looked after". Another person also told us they felt "safe and comfortable". People told us that staff were "always very helpful and cheerful" and that staff were "very, very good".