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
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed and managed, staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns, there were enough staff, and medicines and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supported people's diet, healthcare and mental health needs. Staff understood the need to involve people in decisions and use the least restrictive approach.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed speaking to people calmly, kindly and respectfully. People were involved in decisions, and their privacy, dignity, independence and cultural needs were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's preferences and important relationships. People had choices about care, meals and activities, and information was provided in different formats where needed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had introduced stronger assessment and auditing systems after the previous inspection. Staff and people were asked for feedback, and action plans were used when improvements were needed.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Manon House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 2 August 2022. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, managers and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and other management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
Inspectors found kind relationships between staff and people. Care was personalised, people had choices about meals and activities, and staff supported access to health professionals and important relationships.
The overall rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in May 2021. The home had acted on its improvement plan and was no longer in breach of the earlier regulations on dignity and respect or good governance.
Safe care and medicines
Risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing levels were sufficient, and trained staff administered medicines safely. Inspectors found records showed medicines were given as prescribed.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed by their doctors.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw calm and friendly interactions. People said staff were kind, and staff knew people's needs, preferences and wishes.
“We saw there were positive, caring and trusting relationships established between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences and important relationships. People were involved in decisions about their care, meals, places to visit and activities.
“People were involved in all aspects of the home including choice of meals, visiting places of interest and activities.” from the report
Improved management
The home had introduced new assessment and quality monitoring processes after the previous inspection. Audits covered areas including medicines, care plans, staff records and health and safety.
“A new and effective quality assurance system of auditing the provider's systems has also been implemented.” from the report
Supervision records
minorThe manager acknowledged that formal staff supervision had not been happening as often as the provider's policy required. A new schedule and supervision format had been introduced, so families should ask whether this is now being followed consistently.
“The manager acknowledged the frequency of these formal meetings did not meet the provider's own policy to do with staff supervision.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure the new six to eight weekly staff supervision schedule is being followed?
- 02How are risks and care plans reviewed when a person's mental health or behaviour changes?
- 03How do you check that medicines records remain accurate and that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
- 04How are people involved in choosing their meals, activities and places to visit?
- 05What quality audits and action plans are currently being used to prevent a return to the problems found at the previous inspection?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, and it checked whether improvements from the previous inspection had been made. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 2022 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, May 2021
Manon House is rated Requires Improvement; care was generally safe and responsive, but dignity, independence and management checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 April 2021. One inspector spoke with people, staff, managers and a relative. They observed care, checked the building, and reviewed care records, medicines and management information.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Responsive. People felt safe and comfortable, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and people received support with health, food, activities and relationships.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found restrictions on using shared rooms, confidential documents that were not stored securely, incomplete care information, unreliable food safety checks and a lack of full assessment of some social, cultural and spiritual needs.
The provider removed the restrictions and garden debris and updated some records after the inspection. It was asked to provide an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and return under its re-inspection programme.
Enough suitable staff
The home had enough staff to support people both at home and in the community. Recruitment checks were carried out to make sure staff were suitable.
“There were enough staff to support people. Staffing levels were planned based on the level of support people needed each day at home and in the community.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities and interests that mattered to them. Relatives could visit safely in line with current guidance.
“People were encouraged to take part in activities and pursue interests that were important to them.” from the report
Restrictions on independence
seriousNotices restricted use of the communal lounge and kitchen diner at night. Inspectors found no evidence that these restrictions had been discussed with people or agreed by them.
“There were restrictions to people's autonomy and independence in the home and private information about them was not always stored securely.” from the report
Private information not secure
seriousThree confidential documents about people were found in the communal lounge and medicine storage cupboard. This was a breach of dignity and respect requirements.
“In the communal lounge and in the medicine's storage cupboard, we found three confidential documents relating to people” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's checks did not identify incomplete care and risk information, garden debris, restrictions or problems with personalisation. This was a breach of good governance requirements.
“This indicated the provider's systems for assessing the quality and safety of the service were not always effective.” from the report
Some needs not fully assessed
needs fixingAssessments did not fully cover people's social, cultural and spiritual needs. The provider sent updated care plans for two people after the inspection.
“The provider had not carried out thorough assessments of people's social, cultural and spiritual needs.” from the report
Food checks were unreliable
needs fixingThe home's monthly food safety checks said food was labelled and stored correctly, but inspectors found that opened food in a fridge was not labelled. The provider corrected this after the inspection.
“We found food items stored in one of the fridges had not been labelled after opening, to indicate when these should be used by.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure people can use the communal lounge and kitchen diner without unnecessary restrictions?
- 02How do you keep confidential records secure, and how do you check this is happening?
- 03How do you check that care records contain complete and current information about each person's needs and risks?
- 04How are people's social, cultural and spiritual needs assessed and included in their care plans?
- 05How do you check that opened food is labelled correctly and that food safety checks reflect what is happening in practice?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 2021 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
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- August 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 July 2020.
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 Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.