Archived: The New Mayfair Hotel

At our last inspection on 25 February 2016 we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found 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.

During the inspection visit we observed staff were kind, caring and respectful to people in their care and when they interacted with individuals who stayed at the hotel. People and their relatives told us staff always maintained their dignity and privacy.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care and stay at the hotel. These had been reviewed if changes occurred during their stay.

Staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs. Staff had training to protect people against the risk of harm, poor care and abuse.

The management team had systems in place to ensure safe management of people's medication. Medicines were stored securely and the registered manager had suitable arrangements to audit all administration processes.

We looked around the building and found it had been maintained, was clean and hygienic and a safe place to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required.

The service had safe infection control procedures in place. People who stayed at the hotel told us they were happy with the standard of hygiene in place.

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.

People who stayed at the hotel and relatives lived told us they enjoyed food provided by the chefs and had plenty of choice. One person said about the food, “Nothing better and plenty of choice and of good quality.”

People’s care and support had been planned with them. They told us they had been consulted and listened to about how their care would be delivered whilst staying at The New Mayfair.

People who stayed at the hotel and relatives told us they enjoyed a variety of activities and entertainers nightly. Comments included, “I love the singers every night something different is on it is fantastic.” Another person staying at the hotel said, “I love the pool table.”

The service had a complaints procedure which was on display in the hallway for people’s attention. People we spoke with told us they were happy with the service and had no complaints.

Staff discussed and agreed what support people required and established a care plan to meet their needs whilst at the hotel. We found records were person-centred because assessments and documentation were geared towards the individual’s abilities and preferences to ensure they enjoyed themselves on holiday.

The service used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits, staff meetings and satisfaction surveys to seek their views about the hotel and care provided.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The New Mayfair provides care and support for a maximum of 40 older people who live with dementia. Additionally, the service assists people with learning and physical disabilities, sensory impairment and mental health conditions. The provider offers support for people staying at the hotel for respite or holidays with care. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people staying at The New Mayfair. The hotel is situated close to Blackpool promenade, local shops and other amenities. All bedrooms have ensuite facilities and can accommodate private sleeping arrangements for people who wish to bring their own carers. There are several lounge and dining areas, as well as a public bar and an entertainment zone.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

At the last inspection on 17 September 2014, we found the provider was meeting all the requirements of the regulations inspected.

During this inspection, people told us they felt safe whilst staying at The New Mayfair. One person said, “I definitely feel safe in the hotel and when I’m out and about with the carers.” Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to protect people against potential abuse. Risk assessments were in place to safeguard people against the risks of receiving unsafe care.

We found staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s requirements. Records we looked at contained evidence staff received regular training and supervision to underpin their roles. A staff member told us, “It’s really helpful in me understanding and developing my strengths and weaknesses.” The registered manager recruited and inducted staff safely to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The management team had systems in place to ensure the safe management of people’s medication. Medicines were stored securely and the registered manager had suitable arrangements to audit all administration processes.

People had a range of meal options to choose from and told us they enjoyed their meals. One person said, “There’s plenty of variety and choice. It’s great.” We saw the kitchen was clean and information was made available to staff about special diets and allergies. Staff had recorded people’s dietary requirements and preferences.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding and practice of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Care records contained evidence of people’s consent to their physical health and social care packages. One person told us, “The staff never take over and always support me to decide what and when I want to do anything.”

We observed staff were kind and courteous when they interacted with individuals who stayed at the hotel. People and their representatives told us staff consistently maintained their dignity and privacy. The provider had entertainment facilities and programmes in place and people told us staff effectively supported them with their social needs.

People’s requirements were checked and documented when they booked a room and on arrival at the hotel. Care records we looked at were designed around the individual’s abilities and aimed at promoting their independence. Staff regularly reviewed and updated associated documentation to respond to people’s changing needs. One person told us, “The staff are really good at adapting. If something isn’t working or isn’t right, they try something else.”

Staff and individuals who accessed the service told us the management team had a visible presence and were supportive. The provider had suitable arrangements to check and maintain staff, people and visitors’ health, safety and wellbeing. This included opportunities to raise issues or suggestions about the improvement the service.

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and comfortable during their stay. One person said, 'I'm enjoying my holiday and I'm glad I came. It's a great service'.

Our discussions with staff demonstrated they understood the principals of providing care to people in a safe way. Care plans we reviewed showed people's needs were identified, risk assessed and monitored. This meant The New Mayfair protected people from unsafe care because support planning and risk assessment was appropriate.

Is the service effective?

The service had in-depth, recorded evidence of formal consent. Documents showed people were consistently supported to make basic decisions about their care and stay at The New Mayfair. We noted staff had a good understanding of consent and related principals. One staff member told us, 'Whenever we're performing tasks we always ask how guests want things done and check they want to receive the care we're about to give'.

One person confirmed, "They always ask me what I need. I'm very particular and they check how I like to be helped and how I like things done". This meant care provision was effective and based on individual choice because the service gained people's consent prior to giving support.

Documents we reviewed showed support plans and risk assessments were individualised and updated. Support planning matched people's assessed needs. This meant people were protected against ineffective care provision because people's needs were adequately assessed.

Staff told us they felt supported by the managers. We noted staff had received annual appraisals and regular supervision. One member of staff said, 'I find it really useful because it covers what I've achieved and helps me to reflect on what I could have done better'. This meant people received appropriate care because staff were fully supported to undertake their role and responsibilities.

Is the service caring?

The service user we spoke with told us they found staff to be caring and compassionate. This person said, "The staff are caring, respectful and very patient".

Our discussions with staff showed they had respect and compassion for the people they supported. One staff member told us, "Good care is about following procedures and asking service users how they like to be supported and what they want'.

Is the service responsive?

We saw recorded evidence of how the service supported an individual whose needs had changed and urgent support was required. Their deterioration in health was monitored and appropriate support was obtained from emergency services. This demonstrated The New Mayfair had minimised the risks of unsafe care because it had responded to people's changing needs.

The home had a complaints policy in place. Complaints had been managed appropriately and in a timely manner. This meant the provider had minimised the risks of unsafe care because complaints had been properly responded to.

Is the service well-led?

The New Mayfair had a range of quality audits in place to monitor service delivery. Appropriate policies and other regular processes underpinned this, such as satisfaction surveys, staff meetings and staff supervision. This meant people were protected against inappropriate support because the manager had systems to check the quality of care.

Care delivery was well-organised and there were clear lines of responsibility. A staff member told us, 'I think the service is well-lead. The company is good and they address things in a supportive way. The managers are easy to communicate with and listen to us'. This meant care delivery was appropriate and safe because The New Mayfair was well-led.

Staff had a good understanding of the appropriate handling of complaints. The complaints policy was made available to people, who had signed to show they understood related procedures. We saw records to show the service managed complaints effectively. This meant people were protected from unsafe care because the provider had responded to complaints appropriately.

The agency had procedures in place for dealing with allegations of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training during their induction training and records were maintained of the training in their staff files.

We looked at the recruitment procedures the agency had in place. We found all relevant checks were undertaken before new staff members commenced their employment.

There were a range of audits and systems in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided. Members of the management team were clear about their roles and responsibilities and undertook a range of audits, including the hotel's environment, care plan records and medication records.