Mayflower Court

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Consideration was given to the level of care and support a person required prior to their moving into Mayflower Court on a short term or permanent basis. Assessments were of a good standard and contained detailed person-centred information which outlined people’s needs and preferences. However, we identified that these were not always updated when people returned from hospital and there had been a change in their care needs. The management team undertook to review these.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Care plans and related records showed consideration and reflection of current legislation and best practice guidance. Nationally recognised assessment tools were in use such as for skin integrity and the risk of malnutrition.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. The manager and senior staff understood how to seek support from health and social care staff when required. Care staff said they were able to access information about people via an electronic app on a handheld device and they also received a handover at the start of each shift. Staff described a positive team working environment.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Care plans included information about most medication and past medical history. However, there was limited information in some care plans about the support and management of people’s known medical conditions. For example, how a person documented to have epilepsy and another with insulin dependent diabetes should be supported. Blood glucose results were not consistently recorded in one way in the care records. The provider undertook to ensure this information was detailed in care plans. Care staff confirmed training they had received, such as for diabetes and understood what actions they should take in medical emergencies. Senior staff were aware of how to access health and social care professionals should there be a need.

Senior staff routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. People’s weight was monitored at a frequency in line with their risk of malnutrition and previous weight loss or gain. External health professionals had been consulted for a person who had lost weight and supplemental nutrition was being provided. Where people were at risk of not drinking enough records were maintained and additional support to drink more provided.

People were told about their rights around consent and staff respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. Some decision specific MCA and best interest decisions were not in place. For example, where people were provided with meals or drinks of a modified texture or medication, where people were unable to make the informed decision and fully understand the need for each medication. Care staff understood their responsibilities in relation to mental capacity and consent and that people had the right to refuse offered/required care, in which case they would try later or ask a different staff member to support the person.