CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mayfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff and well-managed risks. Medicines, safeguarding, fire safety, maintenance, cleanliness and infection control were also found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and skills needed to support people. People were supported with food, health appointments, mental capacity decisions and least restrictive care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and gentle. They used people's preferred ways of communicating, respected privacy and supported people to maintain independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, histories and important relationships. People had access to activities, work experience, family contact and an accessible way to raise worries.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective management, staff support and quality monitoring. The provider encouraged learning and worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with effective management systems.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 23 October 2018. The inspector met all six people living at the home, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, health and safety records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safely managed medicines, suitable training, good support with health and communication, and care based on people's choices and needs.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection and remained Good. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns, and no improvements were identified during an unannounced night visit.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Medicines were stored, managed and given by trained staff.
“People's medicines were safely stored, managed and administered by staff who were trained and competent to carry out the task.” from the report
Skilled and caring staff
Staff knew people well and had the training and confidence to meet their needs. Their interactions were kind and gentle.
“Staff spoke with great fondness when they talked to us about people and their interactions with people were caring and gentle.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff used pictures, signs, objects, technology and other communication methods to help people make choices.
“We observed staff using signs, symbols and objects of reference when communicating with people.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to develop skills through work placements and to take part in community activities. Staff encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.
“People had opportunities to develop new skills through meaningful work experience.” from the report
Good oversight
The provider used audits, staff visits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and look for improvements.
“There were procedures in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's preferred way of communicating and help them make everyday choices?
- 02What training and experience would staff have in meeting my relative's particular health and support needs?
- 03Which activities, work placements or community opportunities could be offered to my relative?
- 04How would you involve our family in care plan reviews and keep us informed about health appointments?
- 05How can my relative raise a worry or complaint in a way they can understand and use?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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 Mayfield House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 August 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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.