Mayfair Homecare - Wycombe

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Systems were in place to encourage feedback, such as via quality assurance questionnaires, care reviews and a complaints handling process. Staff told us there was an open culture where they felt able to share any concerns, and were confident the management team acted on feedback. People and families received information about how to share feedback, concerns or complaints. There was variable feedback from people about how effectively the service responded and communicated actions taken in response to feedback or care reviews. However, people and family feedback also indicated consistent staff deployment promoted positive experiences for people.

This service scored 21 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People and relatives were encouraged to share feedback via quality assurance questionnaires, care reviews and a complaints process. Feedback indicated when concerns were raised, the office team took steps to try to resolve concerns or complaints. Comments included, “If I ring the office they are normally pretty good with that”, “Since I’ve complained they have took action so it’s not as bad as it used to be” and “They always respond very positively to any request I make…They are very approachable.” However, we also received variable views from families about how effectively the service responded and communicated actions taken in response to feedback or care reviews, with comments including, “They have asked for feedback and I’ve told them how it is but it’s a tick box exercise, there is no feedback or changes” and “[Staff member] has been a couple of times, [staff] writes it all down and nothing happens or changes. No updated care plan.” The service was responsive to our feedback. The registered manager explained additional oversight and support was in place for staff completing reviews, and advised a ‘You Said, We Did’ process would be introduced to ensure people understood what actions were taken, where required, in response to feedback.

People and families received information about how to share feedback, concerns or complaints as part of a service guide. People were able to share their feedback either formally or informally in accessible ways. A complaints handling process was in place. This included investigating the reported concerns, documenting a complaint investigation report, and summarising the service’s findings and actions in a written response to the complainant. People were encouraged to share feedback with the service via reviews and quality assurance surveys. We reviewed the results of the most recent survey and found the service had written to service users providing open and transparent feedback about the results, including information about actions the service planned to take in response to the findings.

Staff stated they felt able to speak up if they had concerns and were confident the registered manager and office staff would listen to and act on their feedback. Leaders told us they encouraged an open door policy and were accessible to staff 24 hours a day by phone to enable staff to immediately contact them with any queries or concerns. Leaders told us they aimed to promote a transparent culture of proactively and preventatively responding to potential concerns. Leaders described using a variety of methods to share learning with staff, including memos, staff meetings and targeted training.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Assessment processes enabled the service to identify people’s protected characteristics and explore how care and support could be tailored to show regard for what was important to people. Staff deployment sought to overcome barriers people may face in areas such as language and cultural understanding, to provide culturally appropriate care. Staff received training in topics such as dementia and autism, to help staff understand additional needs that may be experienced by different groups of people. The service had also developed several ‘fact sheets’ to provide staff with more detailed information about medical conditions relevant to people using the service.

Leaders told us they focused on values based recruitment to identify staff with qualities including genuine care and compassion. The service supported people with diverse cultural backgrounds and had worked to recruit staff locally and from overseas who had a shared cultural understanding and language skills. This helped to reduce barriers some people may experience when trying to access care or support. Staff we spoke with showed respect and understanding of people’s cultures, for example, two staff who spoke English as a first language told us they had learnt words in a language spoken by someone who used the service to improve their experience.

People and family feedback indicated staff approach and consistent staff deployment promoted positive experiences for people. Comments from relatives included, “[Person's] main carer understands and knows her well so that makes a difference and it works" and “They [staff] are very caring and compassionate to him. They have taken him to a shop which he enjoys…it’s good for his morale.” Feedback also highlighted examples where preferences of staff gender or needs relating to protected characteristics were not consistently met. For example, comments from people included, “I am blind and they don’t leave things where I can reach or find them” and “I’m not happy with my care. I had a regular morning carer who…stopped coming…3 times a man has come and it makes me unhappy and he did personal care.” Leaders were responsive to our feedback and confirmed they would ensure reviews re-check people’s current preferences and needs to ensure these could be accommodated.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.