Archived: Mayfield House Care Home

Updated 11 September 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 26 July 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, for example, statutory notifications. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

Throughout the inspection we observed how staff interacted and cared for people during the day, including mealtimes, during activities and when medicines were administered. During the inspection we spoke with the four people. We spoke with two care staff, the registered manager who was also the provider and their business partner who supported them with the service. Following the inspection, we spoke with: two relatives, a quality assurance officer from the local authority and a GP.

We reviewed four people's care records, which included their assessments, care plans, risk assessments. We looked at three staff recruitment files, supervision logs and training plans. We examined the provider's records, which demonstrated how people's care reviews, staff supervisions, appraisals and required training were arranged. We also looked at the provider's policies, procedures and other records relating to the management of the service, such as staff rotas, health and safety audits, medicine management audits, infection control audits, improvement plans and minutes of staff meetings. We considered how people’s, relatives' and staff members' comments were used to drive improvements in the service.

Updated 11 September 2018

This inspection took place on 26 July and was unannounced. At the last comprehensive inspection on 31 January and 2 February 2017 and at our focussed inspection on 13 June 2017 the service was rated requires improvement. We found there was a continuing breach of Regulation 19 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. This was due to a lack of safe recruitment processes being sustained.

We found at this inspection that the provider had sustained and embedded the necessary changes to their recruitment process and there was no longer a breach of regulation.

Mayfield House Care Home is a care home for people who require personal care. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Mayfield House Care Home is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to 12 people who may be living with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were four people living there.

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. The registered manager was also the provider.

People were cared for by staff who had received appropriate training, support and supervision in their role, however due to staff challenges this year, there had been a delay in some staff training. We asked the provider to book the relevant training in as a matter of urgency; we received confirmation that this had been done.

People's care and support needs were assessed and care plans developed based on best practice guidance. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People were supported to eat and drink sufficiently for their needs. People were supported to access healthcare services, such as GPs and specialist nurses and therapists in order to maintain good health and wellbeing.

The provider had systems in place to protect people from risks to their safety and welfare, including the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Staffing levels were sufficient to support people safely. Recruitment processes were in place to make sure people were supported by staff who were suitable to work in a care setting. There were arrangements in place to store medicines safely and administer them safely and in line with people's preferences. Arrangements to control and manage the risk of infection were established in line with national guidance.

People experienced good continuity and consistency of care from staff who were kind and compassionate. The registered manager had created an inclusive, family atmosphere at the home. People were relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff who invested time to develop meaningful relationships with them. People's independence was promoted by staff who encouraged them to do as much for themselves as possible. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and were sensitive to their needs.

The service was responsive and involved people in developing their care plans which were detailed and personalised to ensure their individual preferences were known. People's care plans had information about their care needs, as well as their wishes regarding independence and any risks identified and how to minimise these. If a person's needs changed, their care plans were updated. Arrangements were in place to obtain the views of people and their relatives and a complaints procedure was available for people and their relatives to use if they had the need.

The registered manager provided support to staff. The safety and quality of the support people received were monitored and any identified shortfalls were acted upon to drive recognised improvement of the service. However due to a period of absence by the registered manager, systems had not ensured staff training was up to date, this did not impact on the quality of care provided for people.