Archived: Mayfield Residential Home

The purpose of this visit was to check staffing records to ensure the home's recruitment processes were thorough and robust. We found that a clear recruitment process was in place yet greater preciseness would enable more detailed information to be gained about prospective staff members.

Despite various assurances, the manager has not submitted an application to become registered with us. As we have not assessed the manager's fitness to perform the role of registered manager, there is a risk that the home will not be appropriately managed.

During this site visit, we noted that improvements had been made to all but one of the above areas. Staff had been spoken to about promoting people's dignity and the restrictive practices had been addressed. An ongoing refurbishment programme and a deep clean of the carpets and armchairs had improved the environment. Further work was planned to people's bedrooms. Attention to practices, which compromised good hygiene had been addressed. However, the effective operation of a hot water regulator, secure window restrictors and ensuring the banisters on the landing were at a recommended height, had not been addressed and these issues remained outstanding. Following our visit, information from the manager confirmed that the water regulator had been replaced and the banisters had been heightened. A review of all window restrictors on the first floor was in the process of being undertaken.

People told us they were happy at the home. They said the food was good and they always had a choice. They said the food was fresh and well cooked. People told us that they liked the staff. They said they were available when they wanted them. People looked well groomed with clean clothing, clean finger nails and freshly brushed hair.

People told us that they were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was promoted. We saw that staff knocked on people's doors before entering and were generally attentive with people. One incident however, whereby staff did not notice a person's catheter was visible, compromised the individual's dignity.

People told us that they liked the staff and felt they could request help when required. They said the time it took staff to respond to their call bell varied depending on the time of day and what they were doing. People said they were happy with the care they received. We saw that people were well groomed with clean hair, finger nails and clothing.

People told us that they liked their bedrooms. They had their own furniture and personal belongings around them. Whilst people's comments about the environment were positive, some aspects did not promote the control of infection. People told us they had the equipment they required to meet their needs.

Some people told us that they liked to read, watch television or listen to the radio. We saw that some people had little stimulation and spent time between drinks and meals, asleep. We were told that this was because the home did not have an activities organiser despite ongoing advertising of the post.

Overall, people told us that they liked the food. There was a choice of food at each meal time. People could also request individual preferences in addition to the main menu. This meant that a more individualised approach to food was in place.