You are here

Archived: The Mayfield Trust Outreach Service Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

This inspection took place on 26 February and 7 March 2018. This was the first inspection of this service since its registration at a new location in June 2017. We announced the inspection to make sure the registered manager would be available when we visited the office and so that people who used the service and their relatives could have notice of us contacting them by telephone.

The Mayfield Trust is an independent charity providing a range of care and support services to children, young people and adults with learning disabilities and other complex needs including physical disabilities. The services provided include supporting people to join in community based activities and personal care.

The service primarily supported children and adults to pursue a range of activities in the community, for example, swimming, trampolining, play gyms, parks and visits to local places of interest. The service had two mini buses and three multi-person cars all of which were able to accommodate people in a wheelchair. People using the service went out individually or in groups supported by staff. The service supported people over a seven day period with the majority of group activities at weekends. When people required support with their personal care whilst engaging in activities this was provided by care workers. The new premises also provided people with drop in facilities to engage in crafts, use computers and use the sensory room.

At the time of our inspection the service was supporting twenty five people who required support with personal care. This included five people who received care and support in their homes.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

All of the people we spoke with told us staff supported people safely. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from harm and the staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe. Accidents and incidents were reported appropriately and reviewed to look for any themes or trends which could be mitigated against.

Safe systems for managing medicines were in place. We spoke with the registered manager about putting protocols in place for the administration of ‘As required’ (PRN) medicines whilst supporting people in the community.

Detailed risk assessments helped to protect people from risks they may encounter in their daily lives. Risk assessments included pictures to help staff with safe use of equipment such as hoists and wheelchairs.

Staff records showed the recruitment process was robust and staff were safely recruited.

Training was delivered to staff in order to help them support people's specific needs. An induction process was in place, although this needed to be improved. Competency checks were routinely carried out.

Staff confirmed they received regular supervision and appraisal and team meetings were held.

Staff were matched to people who used the service. People had their own support worker and a team of support workers where required.

Staff knew how to support people with eating and drinking including managing gastrostomy feeds.

We found staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People's best interests had been appropriately taken with the involvement of relevant people. Relatives told us staff sought people’s consent.

People told us the service was very caring. Staff demonstrated a caring and empathetic attitude. People’s privacy and dignity needs were prioritised and respected.

Person-centred care plans were in place to support staff to provide a personalised service which supported people to engage in a wide range of activities and develop their independence

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

The service was safe.

Staff understood how to keep people safe and would report any concerns. Risk assessments were robust.

There were enough staff to support people and meet their needs. Safe recruitment procedures were in place.

Staff were able to safely support people with their medicines where required.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received the training and support they needed to support them in their roles.

People's consent was sought in relation to their care and support. However there was little evidence to show how people had been involved in the development and review of their care plans.

Staff understood people�s rights in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and consent issues.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

The service was caring.

People were unanimous in their praise of the caring attitude of staff.

People were treated with dignity and respect and staff encouraged

independence and individuality.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

The service was responsive.

The service was responsive and met people's changing needs.

Care records were person-centred and people were supported to engage in their chosen activities and try new activities.

A complaints policy was in place and people told us they would tell staff if they were unhappy about anything.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 April 2018

The service was well led

There was a clear ethos and a commitment to continuous review and development of the service.

Systems were in place to audit the quality and safety of the service.

People told us they would recommend the service to others.