Mayflower Court

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

People and relatives were positive about the culture created by the management team, who they felt were open and approachable. The deputy manager said they had focused on improving the service following the last inspection and ensuring people received a good quality service. The management team told us the provider was supportive in implementing this vision.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The service had a manager who was applying to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. People and relatives told us they knew the management team and were confident they would resolve problems raised with them. People felt the service was well managed. The manager was absent at the time of the inspection, and the provider had arranged for additional management support. The District Manager told us they would keep the additional support in place until the manager returned to work.

Staff did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

We received mixed feedback from staff, with some telling us they did not feel confident to speak up or raise concerns. These staff expressed concerns that speaking up would have consequences for their employment. Staff said they felt some requests from staff were treated differently depending on their employment status. They did not raise concerns about treatment of people living in the service. Other staff told us they were confident any issues they raised with the management team would be taken seriously and addressed.

We raised this feedback with the management team, who were concerned to hear it and said they would explore ways to gain further feedback from staff. The provider had procedures in place for staff to raise any concerns, including ways for staff to do this anonymously and outside of their direct management structure.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The service employed a diverse workforce, including staff who moved to the UK specifically to work for the provider through the sponsorship scheme. The management team supported staff to make reasonable adjustments to their working patterns where needed, to support them to remain at work. For example, changes to accommodate caring responsibilities and support for staff to observe their religious and cultural needs. Staff and managers were supported to complete equality and diversity training.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

At the last inspection we identified shortfalls with the provider’s governance systems, which did not ensure improvements were made to the service where needed. At this inspection this had improved.

The management team completed audits, surveys and observations of staff practice to monitor the quality of the service. The provider’s senior managers maintained regular oversight of the service through monitoring of actions from the home’s universal action plan. These included feedback from people and their relatives, observations of staff practice, and a review of records completed by staff. Actions from the audits were assigned to staff with a timescale for completion.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The management team told us they worked with other professionals to help make sure people received continuity in their care. Relatives gave examples of the service working in partnership with other agencies, including the GP and specialist nurses. Health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about their experience of working with the service to meet people’s needs. Comments included, “The service demonstrates a commitment to maintaining residents' wellbeing, dignity, and independence, while investing in staff development.”

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Systems for monitoring standards of care were used to identify areas of improvement and lessons learned. This included regular audits, quality assurance checks and feedback from people and relatives. The manager was a member of management forums and professional bodies, which they used to share learning from other services.