Mayfield Hall

Updated 26 July 2019

The inspection:

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

Inspection team:

The inspection team consisted of one inspector, and an Expert 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, in this case, care services for older people.

Service and service type: Mayfield Hall is a care home without nursing. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager, registered with CQC. This means that they and the provider will be legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

This inspection was unannounced and started early in the morning as we wanted to meet the night staff and observe the morning handover between staff shifts. This helped us to see how duties were allocated for the day.

What we did:

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service and the notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required by law to send us. We used the information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people living at the service, the registered manager, Nominated Individual, three relatives, the chef, and five care staff. The Nominated Individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. We spent two periods of time throughout the day conducting a short observational framework for inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not tell us verbally about their life at Mayfield Hall.

We looked at the care records for three people in detail and sampled other records, such as those for medicines administration, audits and the management of risks. We looked at two staff recruitment files, sampled policies and procedures in use, and reviewed complaints, concerns and notifications sent to us about the service.

Updated 26 July 2019

About the service:

Mayfield Hall is a care home without nursing and is registered to provide accommodation and support for a maximum of 20 people. The registered manager said they would consider themselves full at 18, as some rooms were registered for shared occupancy if needed. At the time of the inspection there were 16 people living at the service. People living at Mayfield Hall were older people, living with frailty or dementia.

The service is an older building set over three floors with a lift to access rooms above the ground floor. Only the ground and first floors are available for people needing care, as the second floor is used for private staff accommodation.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us Mayfield Hall was a good place to live. We saw good practice during the inspection, when people were supported well by staff.

There was an established management team at the service, who worked alongside care staff each day. Other quality assurance systems and regular audits were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. Some of these would have benefitted from further development and this was discussed with the registered manager. We have made a recommendation about the management of laundry systems.

Risks to people from living with long term health conditions were assessed. These included risks such as from falls, choking, poor nutrition or pressure ulcers, and included actions taken to mitigate risks where possible. People told us they ate well, but where there were concerns over people’s nutrition or hydration appropriate actions were taken.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse, and the service responded to any concerns or complaints about people’s wellbeing. The service learned from incidents to prevent a re-occurrence. People’s rights were being respected, and decisions had been made and recorded in people’s best interests where they were not able to make these decisions themselves. The service respected and supported individual people’s equality and diversity.

There was a recruitment process in place that helped ensure potential staff were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable. Enough staff were in place to meet people’s needs, and staff received the training and support they needed to carry out their role.

Care plans were based on up to date assessments of people’s needs. They contained details about people’s wishes and guided staff on how the person’s care should be delivered. We saw people’s care plans were being followed in practice. Staff knew people well.

People received their medicines as prescribed, and there were safe systems in place to manage the storage, administration and disposal of medicines. The service was being audited in the fortnight following the inspection by the local pharmacist. The registered manager planned to discuss some areas of prescribing practice with them, for example ensuring clarity around the use of ‘as required’ medicines.

Staff told us Mayfield Hall was a good place to work, and they were well supported by the management team, who were always available on call. The building was older and in need of some updating, although we did not identify any areas of potential risk.

More information is in the full report

Rating at last inspection: This service was last inspected on 20 January 2017, when it was rated as good in all areas and as an overall rating.

Why we inspected: This inspection was scheduled for follow up based on the last report rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.