• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Mayfield House

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

43 Langtry Grove, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG7 7AX (0115) 837 5426

Provided and run by:
Mr Khurshid Ayoub

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 25 July 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Prior to our inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service. This included information received from local health and social care organisations and statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events, which the provider is required to send us by law, such as, allegations of abuse and serious injuries. We also contacted commissioners of the service and asked them for their views. We used this information to help us to plan the inspection.

We also used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

The inspection was undertaken by two inspectors. During our inspection visit, we spoke with one person who lived at the home. We also spoke with two members of care staff, the team leader, the business development manager and the provider.

To help us assess how people's care needs were being met we reviewed all, or part of, three people's care records and other information, for example their risk assessments. We also looked at the medicines records of all three people, three staff recruitment files and a range of other records relating to the running of the service. We were unable to conduct observations of care and support as people living at Mayfield House were out in the community for much of our inspection visit.

During our inspection visit, we asked the provider to send us information about training, staff supervision, accidents and incidents and audits. However, we did not receive these prior to writing this report.

Overall inspection

Requires improvement

Updated 25 July 2018

We conducted an unannounced inspection at Mayfield House on 18 June 2018. Mayfield House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Mayfield House accommodates up to four people in one building. On the day of our inspection, three people were living at the home; all of these were people with support needs related to mental health conditions.

This was the first time we had inspected the service since they registered with us in May 2017 and it was the first time the service has been rated as Requires Improvement.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection, however they were absent at the time of our inspection. 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.

During this inspection we found that the service provided at Mayfield House was not consistently safe. Medicines were not stored or managed safely. Medicines records were not completed to demonstrate people had been offered their medicines as prescribed and, medicines were not always recorded on medicines records. Staff did not always have access to accurate information about how to administer medicines safely. All of these issues increase the risk of medicines error, or abuse of medicines. Environmental risks were not safely managed, sufficient action had not been taken to protect people from the risk of fire or legionella. The provider told us they would address this as a matter of urgency.

Systems to ensure the quality and safety of the service were not comprehensive or effective. This had resulted in areas of concern not being identified prior to our inspection and placed people at risk of harm. Timely action was not always taken in response to known issues. The provider had failed to ensure records relating to the running of the home were accurate and up to date. People and staff were given the opportunity to provide feedback and make suggestions about the running of the home.

Risks associated with people’s support were identified and assessed, and measures were put in place to ensure people’s safety whilst also promoting their independence. People told us they felt safe and there were systems and processes to minimise the risk of abuse. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and ensure their safety. Safe recruitment practices were followed to reduce the risk of people being supported by unsuitable staff. Overall, the environment was clean and hygienic.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People had access to healthcare and their health needs were monitored and responded to. People had enough to eat and drink, they chose what they ate and were supported to plan and prepare meals. There were systems in place to ensure information was shared across services when people moved between them. The design and decoration of the building accommodated people’s diverse needs.

Staff told us they felt supported and said they had enough training to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. However, the provider was not able to locate records of this, which meant they were not able to provide evidence of staff training or details of staff supervisions.

People told us staff were kind and caring. Staff respected people’s privacy and treated them with dignity. People were involved in day-to-day decisions about their care and support and had access to advocacy services if they required this to help them express themselves.

People received responsive support which was based upon their individual needs and preferences. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s support needs, and people’s diverse needs were recognised and accommodated. People spent their time doing things that they enjoyed and which were based on their individual interests and goals. There were systems in place to respond to concerns and complaints. However, the provider was unable to locate records of complaints, which meant we were unable to assess how previous complaints had been handled.

During this inspection, we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.