CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mayfair Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding. Medicines were generally managed safely, but one medicine box had not been signed and dated when opened, and some equipment was not clearly labelled for individual people.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had relevant training. Inspectors found that food choices were not always explained clearly, especially for people with cognitive impairment.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were given choices and staff spent time listening and reassuring them.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and regularly reviewed. There were many activities and links with the local community, but some people and relatives felt there was not enough meaningful stimulation.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was approachable and quality checks were in place. However, two care plans were not fully accurate or updated quickly enough.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some records and activities needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 January 2020. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment files, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, received suitable care and were treated with kindness and respect.
Inspectors found some minor weaknesses. These included records that were not always updated promptly, some incomplete recruitment checks, unclear food choices for people with cognitive impairment, and mixed views about activities. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns.
“People felt safe living at the home and with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, listened to them and supported their choices. Inspectors saw warm relationships and reassuring care.
“Throughout the day we noted a warm relationship between the staff and the people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised support
People's needs, preferences and communication needs were assessed. Care plans helped staff provide consistent support.
“People received care and support in a way that was flexible and responsive to their individual needs.” from the report
Good management support
Staff said they felt supported and involved. Audits were used to identify issues such as moving and handling practice.
“Quality assurance processes such as audits were in place.” from the report
Care records not always up to date
needs fixingSome risk assessments were not kept with care plans, making them harder for staff to find. Two care plans were also not fully accurate or updated promptly.
“Some records were not updated in a timely manner.” from the report
Food choices were not always clear
minorPeople, particularly those with cognitive impairment, were not always given enough help to make meaningful food choices. Pictures or sample plates were not used on the day inspected.
“We observed the lunch service and noted that choices were not always communicated clearly, especially for people living with a cognitive impairment.” from the report
Mixed views about activities
needs fixingSome people and relatives felt there was not enough meaningful stimulation, especially for people living with dementia. The management team agreed to improve how it checked whether activities were effective.
“Some people's relatives felt more could be done to engage people, especially those living with cognitive impairments.” from the report
Equipment identification
minorIndividual hoist slings were not named. The home used identity numbers and a register, but the manager requested further information to confirm people were using their allocated slings.
“People had individual slings for use when being supported to transfer by mechanical hoist. These were not named to indicate which person they had been allocated to.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure care plans and risk assessments are updated promptly and kept together?
- 02Have all staff references now been checked with the referee and recorded fully?
- 03How do you help people with cognitive impairment choose their meals?
- 04How do you check whether activities are meaningful and suitable for each person, especially people living with dementia?
- 05How do you identify each person's allocated hoist sling and make sure it is used correctly?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 2020 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Mayfair Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with a fluid-monitoring shortfall and an unpleasant smell in one unit.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 July 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and reviewed care, medicines, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable care plans, kind staff and good systems for listening to concerns.
The report also identified two issues. Fluid intake targets for people at risk of dehydration were not personalised, and one unit did not smell fresh and clean. The previous inspection had found some concerns about dignity and respect, which inspectors said had improved.
Safe staffing
People, relatives and staff said there were enough staff. Inspectors saw a calm service where call bells were answered promptly.
“People, their relatives and staff all told us that there were enough staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence. Inspectors saw staff speak kindly and respect people's choices.
“At this inspection we heard staff speaking with people kindly and respectfully.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's individual needs, and relatives were involved in reviews.
“People's care plans were sufficiently detailed to be able to guide staff to provide their individual care needs.” from the report
Activities and feedback
The home offered varied activities and created ways for people and relatives to suggest improvements, including changes to menus.
“There was a variety of activities offered for people who used the service to engage with if they chose to.” from the report
Fluid targets were not personalised
needs fixingFor people at risk of dehydration, the recommended fluid amount was set at 1500 ml for everyone rather than being based on each person's needs. The manager said guidance would be obtained to calculate individual targets.
“The registered manager told us that the current recommended fluid intake target was 1500 ml over a 24 hour period however acknowledged that this was not personalised” from the report
Smell in one unit
minorOne unit did not smell fresh and clean. The management team had tried to address this and had ordered a replacement carpet.
“We noted that one unit in the home did not smell fresh and clean.” from the report
- 01How are each person's fluid targets calculated, recorded and reviewed?
- 02Has the replacement carpet been fitted, and has the smell in the affected unit been resolved?
- 03How many staff are planned for each shift, and how do you adjust staffing when people's needs change?
- 04How will my relative and family be involved in care plan reviews and decisions about daily care?
- 05What activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, abilities and preferences?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions and providing ratings for each. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 July 2017 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 Mayfair Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2011.
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 Hertfordshire
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 £980 to £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.