Archived: Mayfair Homecare - Helmi House

Updated 17 May 2022

The inspection

We carried out this performance review and assessment under Section 46 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act). We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements of the regulations associated with the Act and looked at the quality of the service to provide a rating.

Unlike our standard approach to assessing performance, we did not physically visit the office of the location. This is a new approach we have introduced to reviewing and assessing performance of some care at home providers. Instead of visiting the office location we use technology such as electronic file sharing and video or phone calls to engage with people using the service and staff.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and two Experts by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

This service provides care and support to people living in specialist ‘extra care’ housing. Extra care housing is purpose-built or adapted single household accommodation in a shared site or building. The accommodation is rented and is the occupant’s own home. People’s care and housing are provided under separate contractual agreements. CQC does not regulate premises used for extra care housing; this inspection looked at people’s personal care and support service.

Registered Manager

This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was announced.

We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service.

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make.

We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

This performance review and assessment was carried out without a visit to the location’s office. We used technology such as phone and video calls to enable us to engage with people using the service and staff, and electronic file sharing to enable us to review documentation.

Inspection activity started on 19 April 2022 and ended on 22 April 2022.

We spoke with five people who used the service, 11 relatives and seven staff members including the registered manager.

We reviewed a range of records. This included six people’s care records. We looked at and reviewed multiple documents submitted by the provider. These included policies and other information relevant to the running of the service.

Updated 17 May 2022

Mayfair Homecare – Helmi House is an 'extra care' housing scheme that provides personal care and support to people living in their own flats in a single multi-occupancy building.

The purpose-built building comprises of 46 self-contained flats. Sanctuary Housing Association own the building and, as the property's landlord, are responsible for its maintenance.

At the time of our inspection, 35 people aged 55 and over were receiving personal care and support at the scheme. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We received mixed feedback about how staff provided care and support to people. There were instances when staff had not always delivered care in a manner that respected people’s dignity. Comments included, “They look after me well. Sometimes they don’t. It does happen”; “Some [carers] are very awkward. Makes us feel bad”; “Some carers are nice, some argue with [person] who then tells the carer to go”; “Three or four of them are really good at what they’re doing. [Person] mainly likes these carers” and “Yes, it is well managed and organised” and “Sometimes I think none of them go home. Always happy and smiling.”

People consented to the care provided to them. People had positive and meaningful relationships with staff. People were supported to maintain their independence as long as practicable and to make choices about their daily living.

People received care in a safe manner that reduced the risk of harm and abuse. Risks to people were identified and support plans put in place to guide staff on how to mitigate the issues identified. Staff were recruited safely to ensure their fitness to work with vulnerable people. People were supported to take their medicines.

Staff followed the provider’s processes in line with best practice guidelines regarding the prevention and control of infection including those associated with COVID-19.

People were cared for by staff who were competent in their roles as they underwent induction, training and supervisions. People received their care from a sufficient and consistent team of staff.

Quality assurance systems were effectively used to make improvements when needed. Lessons were learnt when things went wrong. People who used the service, their relatives and staff felt the registered manager valued their views to develop the service. One person told us, “The manager is very nice, approachable and helpful.” The provider worked closely with other agencies to plan and deliver care to people using the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

This extra care service was previously registered under Mayfair Homecare - Helmi House run by Sevacare (UK) Limited. The last rating for the location under the previous provider’s registration was good (published 5 December 2018).

Why we inspected

This service was registered with us on 6 September 2019 and this is the first inspection.

This was an ‘inspection using remote technology’. This means we did not visit the office location and instead used technology such as electronic file sharing to gather information, and phone calls to engage with people using the service as part of this performance review and assessment.