CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 2a & 2b Mayfair
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse as far as possible, and risks were clearly identified with plans for staff to follow. However, some safeguarding investigation records did not show the outcome or lessons learned, and medicine signatures were missing for one day.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff understood people's needs and worked closely with health professionals. People's nutrition and health needs were managed, although weighing records did not always show that care plan checks had taken place.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness and respect, protected their privacy and dignity, and supported independence. Care plans explained people's communication methods, preferences and personal needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff responded to people's communication, behaviour and changing needs. Activities reflected people's interests and included opportunities in the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was described as approachable and supportive. Quality checks, feedback systems and service improvement plans were in place.
What inspectors found, May 2018
2a & 2b Mayfair was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 12 April 2018. Inspectors reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff recruitment files, training records, complaints, accidents and quality checks. They interacted with five people and spoke with staff, managers, relatives and professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk plans, good support for people's health, and staff who treated people with kindness and respect.
There were some record-keeping shortfalls. A day of missing medicine signatures was found, safeguarding records did not always show the investigation outcome or lessons learned, and weighing records did not always match care plans. The manager agreed to take action.
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and supported them to make choices.
“The caring, committed and enthusiastic staff team continued to meet people's needs with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how people communicated their feelings, choices and needs. Staff used this information to respond appropriately.
“The service was exceptionally responsive to peoples communication needs in a person centred way.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked closely with a range of health professionals to meet people's complex physical and emotional needs.
“The service worked very closely with health and other professionals to ensure they met people's health and well-being needs to a very high standard.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Staffing levels were adjusted to people's current needs. Recruitment checks were completed before staff worked unsupervised.
“People were supported by sufficient staff to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff said managers were available, listened to concerns and supported their development. Quality monitoring systems were in place.
“The service promoted a positive culture and staff felt the management was available, approachable and supportive.” from the report
Safeguarding records
needs fixingRecords did not always show the outcome of safeguarding investigations or that lessons had been shared. The manager agreed to address this.
“However, records did not always reflect the outcome of the investigation or that lessons learnt had been disseminated.” from the report
Medicine signatures
seriousSeveral medicine administration records had missing signatures for one day. The manager said the medicines had been given and planned an investigation.
“During inspection we noted that there was one day where there was medicine administration signatures missing on several people's medicines record.” from the report
Weight records
needs fixingRecords did not always show that people had been weighed as often as their care plans required. The manager provided an action plan.
“However, records did not always reflect that people were being weighed in accordance with their care plan.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure medicine administration records are signed every time?
- 02How do you record safeguarding investigations, their outcomes and the lessons shared with staff?
- 03How do you make sure people are weighed at the frequency set out in their care plans?
- 04How would you meet my relative's communication needs and recognise when they need help?
- 05How do you adjust staffing levels when a person's support needs change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 2a & 2b Mayfair
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Reading
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,010 to £1,270 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.