Archived: The Mayfield Trust Outreach Service

Updated 18 April 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 February when we spoke to people on the telephone and 7 March 2018 when we visited the office. This was the first inspection of this service since its registration at a new location in June 2017. We announced the inspection to make sure the registered manager would be available when we visited the office and so that people who used the service and their relatives could have notice of us contacting them by telephone.

The inspection was carried out by 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 service. The expert by experience spoke on the telephone with relatives of eight people who used the service. We spoke with relatives because many of the people who used the service were under the age of eighteen or were not able to tell us about their experience of the service verbally. During the visit to the office, the inspector met two people who used the service, the registered manager, the care co-ordinator, two assistant care co-ordinators and two support workers.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included looking at information we had received about the service and statutory notifications we had received from the home. We also contacted the local authority commissioning and safeguarding teams and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The provider returned the PIR and we took this into account when we made judgements in this report.

We looked at three people’s care records in detail, three staff recruitment files, the training matrix as well as records relating to the management of the service. We also saw the activity room and the sensory room located at the office premises.

Updated 18 April 2018

This inspection took place on 26 February and 7 March 2018. This was the first inspection of this service since its registration at a new location in June 2017. We announced the inspection to make sure the registered manager would be available when we visited the office and so that people who used the service and their relatives could have notice of us contacting them by telephone.

The Mayfield Trust is an independent charity providing a range of care and support services to children, young people and adults with learning disabilities and other complex needs including physical disabilities. The services provided include supporting people to join in community based activities and personal care.

The service primarily supported children and adults to pursue a range of activities in the community, for example, swimming, trampolining, play gyms, parks and visits to local places of interest. The service had two mini buses and three multi-person cars all of which were able to accommodate people in a wheelchair. People using the service went out individually or in groups supported by staff. The service supported people over a seven day period with the majority of group activities at weekends. When people required support with their personal care whilst engaging in activities this was provided by care workers. The new premises also provided people with drop in facilities to engage in crafts, use computers and use the sensory room.

At the time of our inspection the service was supporting twenty five people who required support with personal care. This included five people who received care and support in their homes.

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.

All of the people we spoke with told us staff supported people safely. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people from harm and the staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe. Accidents and incidents were reported appropriately and reviewed to look for any themes or trends which could be mitigated against.

Safe systems for managing medicines were in place. We spoke with the registered manager about putting protocols in place for the administration of ‘As required’ (PRN) medicines whilst supporting people in the community.

Detailed risk assessments helped to protect people from risks they may encounter in their daily lives. Risk assessments included pictures to help staff with safe use of equipment such as hoists and wheelchairs.

Staff records showed the recruitment process was robust and staff were safely recruited.

Training was delivered to staff in order to help them support people's specific needs. An induction process was in place, although this needed to be improved. Competency checks were routinely carried out.

Staff confirmed they received regular supervision and appraisal and team meetings were held.

Staff were matched to people who used the service. People had their own support worker and a team of support workers where required.

Staff knew how to support people with eating and drinking including managing gastrostomy feeds.

We found staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People's best interests had been appropriately taken with the involvement of relevant people. Relatives told us staff sought people’s consent.

People told us the service was very caring. Staff demonstrated a caring and empathetic attitude. People’s privacy and dignity needs were prioritised and respected.

Person-centred care plans were in place to support staff to provide a personalised service which supported people to engage in a wide range of activities and develop their independence.

People told us they had been involved in the development of care plans although there was little to demonstrate this within the documentation.

People told us they would tell staff if they had any complaints. We saw the complaints procedure was available in an easy read format.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and to obtain people’s views.