We carried out a review of the data available to us about Mayfield House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Mayfield House, you can give feedback on this service.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going 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.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs in a safe way. Staff were trained to recognise and report any signs of abuse. The provider’s procedures ensured that appropriate staff were employed. Risks to people were assessed and well managed. People’s medicines were safely managed and administered. There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.
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 support this practice. People were supported to eat well in accordance with their needs and preferences. People’s health and well-being was monitored and supported. People were cared for by staff who had the skills and training to meet their needs.
Staff interacted with people in a kind and respectful manner and they knew people well. People’s privacy was respected and staff supported people to maintain their dignity. The provider’s procedures relating to confidentiality were understood and followed by staff.
People were provided with opportunities for social stimulation and work placements and they were supported to maintain contact with their family and friends. Staff ensured people saw healthcare professionals when they needed. People could be confident that they received a service which met their needs and preferences. There were effective procedures in place to respond to any concerns or complaints.
There were effective management systems in place and there were systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided. People were supported by a team of staff who felt supported and valued.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Mayfield House is registered to provide accommodation with nursing and personal care to a maximum of six people. There were six people living at the home on the day of our inspection.
A registered manager was in post and was present during 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.
Staff understood people’s needs and provided the care and support they needed safely. Staff were trained to recognise and report signs of harm and abuse and were confident to report concerns if they arose.
People were supported by enough staff and arrangements were in place if more staff were ever needed so that people were supported safely at all times. People’s medicines were managed safely by staff who were trained to administer it and understood the procedures they must follow.
People’s right to make their own decisions about their own care and treatment were supported by staff. Where people were unable to make their own decisions these were made in their best interests by people who knew them and other relevant professionals.
People were supported by staff who knew them well and had good relationships with them. Staff made sure people were involved in their own care and made sure information was given to them in a way they could understand. Staff were skilled at communicating with people and gave people enough time for them to communicate their wishes and express themselves.
Staff supported people to maintain a healthy balanced diet and supported them to make their own choices about what they wanted to eat and drink. People received healthcare when they needed it and routine healthcare appointments were kept up to date.
People were as independent as they could be and staff encouraged and supported this. Staff treated people with kindness and respected people’s right to privacy and dignity.
People were treated as individuals and received care and support that was individual to them and met their current and changing needs. Care and support needs were regularly reviewed with people and relatives were kept up to date on what was happening in their family member’s lives.
People were involved in the running of the home and were able to express their views and opinions on the support they received and improvements that could be made. Relatives and staff were also encouraged to contribute their opinions to help make any improvements within the home
Staff were supported by the provider in their roles and were committed to providing a quality service that met people’s needs. Staff and the registered manager understood their roles and knew what was expected of them to make sure that people received a service which met their needs and benefitted them.
Systems were in place for the provider and registered manager to monitor the quality of service that staff delivered at the home and improvements were made where needed.
Staff demonstrated a good understanding and knowledge of the individual needs of the two people whose care we looked at in detail. Care plans were detailed and provided staff with clear instructions on how people preferred their care needs to be met.
People led active lifestyles and took part in a range of activities in the home and the community.
We saw people were encouraged and supported to maintain a clean and hygienic home.
People were involved in the recruitment of new staff. There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began working with vulnerable adults.
The provider had a system in place to monitor the quality of the service it was providing. People had the opportunity to attend meetings held at the home to discuss the service and voice their views.
The atmosphere was friendly and staff interaction was positive. The person's consent was sought for activities, food, drinks and their views were respected. We looked at the provider's analysis of resident questionnaires completed by staff with five people who used the service which showed that everyone was satisfied with their support, activities and felt safe.
We spoke with two staff, the manager and head of residential services. We looked at one person's care records in detail, a behaviour plan and incident records for other people. We looked at records about staff.
Best interest decisions had been made about people's care and treatment with relatives and health professionals. People had health checks and any risks to health were monitored.
There was a system to keep staffing levels under review. One person had individual attention from staff on our visit.
Staff told us that they would report any concerns about people's safety to managers and other agencies. There were systems to act upon and learn from safeguarding, incidents, comments and complaints should they arise.