Mayflower Court

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Incidents and near misses were recorded, investigated and reviewed by the management team to ensure actions were implemented. Learning from incidents was shared with all staff to ensure they understood changes in the way they needed to support people. Examples included changes in equipment used for people at high risk of falls and changes in processes to ensure people’s weight loss was identified and risks managed effectively.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Relatives told us systems worked well when people moved to the home, with good communication. People’s health conditions were documented, and they were supported to access services from health and social care professionals. Key information from people’s care records were shared with other services where relevant, for example when people were admitted to hospital. This helped to ensure a smooth transition and continuity of care.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and relatives said they felt they were safe living at the service, with people describing staff as “kind”, “very nice” and “patient.” Staff demonstrated a good understanding of their safeguarding responsibilities and said they completed safeguarding training and had regular discussions about safeguarding issues. Staff were confident the management team would take appropriate action if they reported safeguarding concerns. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns including to external organisations if needed

Whereappropriate the provider had applied to the local authority for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations. The manager had a record of all DoLS applications that were made, including details of any conditions to authorisations.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

At the last inspection we identified shortfalls in the way people were supported to manage risks. At this inspection this had improved.

Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were assessed and plans were developed to manage those risks. People now had clear plans in place with details of how to manage risks relating to health conditions, for example diabetes and seizures. There were plans setting out people’s support needs in relation to mobility, mental health and distress. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the risks people faced and how to support them safely. Staff told us risk management plans were regularly reviewed and updated as people’s needs changed. Staff had access to updated plans through the care planning system and were notified of changes.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People told us the home was well maintained. The provider assessed the service for risks and took action to ensure people, staff and visitors remained safe. All areas of the home were in a good state of repair. Equipment, such as fire systems, window restrictors, electrical and gas systems and hoists were regularly serviced and tested to ensure they were safe. Staff told us action was taken quickly when repairs were needed.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Most people and relatives felt there were enough staff available and said staff generally responded quickly when they requested assistance. Comments included, “If I press my buzzer they come quickly” and “They don’t hurry you to do things.” However, some people felt staffing levels could be low at times, and they had to wait for longer than they would like for assistance. Staffinglevels were determined by a tool used to assess the levels of support people needed. Records demonstrated staffing hours were consistently above the hours assessed as needed. During the inspection we observed staff responding promptly to people’s needs. Since the last inspection the provider had introduced additional staff support to ensure there were sufficient staff available to support people with meals. Weobserved this worked well, with good support for people in a calm and unhurried manner.

Pre-employment checks were completed for staff before starting work, including whether they had the right to work in the UK, references from previous employers and a criminal records check. New staff received an induction, which included shadowing experienced staff. Staff told us, and records confirmed, they received regular training relevant to people’s needs. The management team had a record of all training staff had completed and when refresher training was due.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People told us the service was always kept clean, and we observed the home was clean in all areas. Staff followed good infection prevention and control practice, to help keep people safe. Staff said they completed infection prevention and control training and had access to all the equipment they needed. We observed staff using suitable protective equipment safely during the inspection. Regular infection control audits were completed, with action taken to address shortfalls identified.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

At the last inspection we identified shortfalls in the way some medicines were stored and guidance for staff on support people needed to take ‘as required’ medicines. At this inspection this had improved.

People and relatives told us staff provided good support with their medicines. Staff received training in the safe management of medicines, and a manager regularly observed their practice to ensure they were doing this safely. We observed staff supporting people to take their medicines safely.

Care plans now contained detailed information about the support people needed to take their medicines, including any that were prescribed to be taken ‘as required’. Staff kept accurate records of the medicines people took. Medicines were stored safely. Cream and liquid medicines were now labelled with the date they were opened and disposed of in line with manufacturers guidance to ensure they remained effective. The balance of medicines held in the service matched the records. Managers completed regular medicines audits and took action to address shortfalls.