CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mayfield Court
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visiting, admissions, testing, protective equipment, hygiene and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 30 October 2020. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found safe arrangements for visitors, admissions, testing, social distancing and the use of personal protective equipment. They also found that the home had plans to prevent and manage outbreaks.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. Safe was inspected but not rated, and the other areas were not assessed in this inspection.
Safe visiting
Visits were limited, but arrangements were made for essential visits and visits at the end of life or where they supported a person's wellbeing.
“The service followed safe visiting procedures. Visits were restricted to essential visitors only.” from the report
Protective equipment
The home had suitable supplies of protective equipment, and staff used and disposed of it correctly.
“Stocks of the right standard of personal protective equipment (PPE) were well maintained and staff used and disposed of it correctly.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
People and staff had regular testing, and the home had procedures for admissions and managing possible infections or outbreaks.
“People and staff had access to regular testing.” from the report
Keeping families in contact
Staff helped people stay in touch with relatives and friends using technology during the pandemic.
“Staff reassured people throughout the pandemic and provided them with the support they needed to maintain regular contact with their family and friends through the use technology.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently managed, including visits for people receiving end of life care?
- 02How do you test new residents before admission, and how is the 14-day isolation period managed?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested now, and what happens after a positive result?
- 04How do you make sure staff use and dispose of personal protective equipment correctly?
- 05What support is available for residents who want to keep in regular contact with family and friends?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only, so the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 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, April 2019
Mayfield Court was rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally caring, effective and well-led support, with some medication and care-plan records needing improvement.
The inspection took place on 4 and 7 February 2019. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, trustees and health professionals. They observed care and checked medication, care plans, recruitment, training, safety and quality records.
The overall rating remained Outstanding. Effective, caring and well-led were Outstanding. Safe and responsive were Good. Inspectors found that people were treated as individuals, involved in decisions and supported to live as independently as possible.
The home was clean and safe, with enough staff and good training. People received support with their health, medicines and activities. Inspectors found some recording gaps. One medication record did not match the stock, and reasons for stopped or unused medicines were not always recorded. Some care plans did not include all the information staff knew about people's communication and decision-making needs. The manager acted on these points during the inspection.
People have a real say
People living at the home helped shape decisions about care, the building, activities and staff recruitment. Residents' meetings and committees gave people regular ways to influence how the home was run.
“People living at Mayfield Court were central to decision making and meaningfully consulted with about how their support was provided and how and their home operated.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found staff to be consistently caring, respectful and person-centred. Staff adapted how they communicated to each person's needs.
“People told us that staff were consistently kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
Strong staff skills
Staff received broad training and support, including training linked to people's individual needs. Inspectors saw that staff understood people well and promoted independence.
“Staff received training and support to carry out their role to a high standard and to the standard people living there expected.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The home used feedback, incidents, research and regular audits to improve practice. Inspectors saw that questions raised on the first day were acted on by the second day.
“There was a culture within the home of immediately taking action once areas for improvements were noted.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingOne medicine stock check did not match the records because of a recording error. The reasons why some medicines were stopped or not used were not consistently recorded, although action was taken during the inspection.
“We also found that when people were not taking their medication either because it was not needed or had been stopped the reason was not consistently recorded.” from the report
Care-plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not include all the information staff knew about communication and decision-making. The manager agreed to review this.
“In some areas plans did not contain all the information staff knew and followed, for example about communicating with people or decision making.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that reasons for stopped or unused medicines are recorded consistently?
- 02How do you make sure medicine stock always matches the records?
- 03Have all care plans been updated to include people's communication and decision-making needs?
- 04How can residents and families take part in meetings or committees about the running of the home?
- 05What activities and transport are available for the person I am considering moving here?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the first day unannounced; the caring rating improved from Good to Outstanding and the other ratings remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 2019 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 Mayfield Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Outstanding rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Outstandingstayed OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- August 2016OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Liverpool
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 £1,260 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“All in all Kama b cared for the owner really well, every aspect of her care was of the highest standard.”
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.