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 that risks were assessed and managed, staffing levels were sufficient, recruitment was safe, medicines were administered safely and infection control procedures were followed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had access to health professionals and staff had the skills, training and experience to meet their needs. The home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff interactions were observed to be kind and caring, and people were involved in decisions as far as they were able.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were clear and personalised. People were supported to take part in activities and hobbies they chose, stay in contact with family and friends, and raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager was visible and approachable and quality monitoring systems were in place. However, the manager had not kept up to date with changes in legislation and guidance.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home’s leadership needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 November 2018. Inspectors met the four people living there, spoke with two staff members and the registered manager, observed care, and checked records including one person’s care records, medicines and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, well-managed risks, suitable training, support with health needs, respectful care and activities matched to people’s preferences.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The manager was not up to date with some changes in legislation and guidance, including equality and accessible information requirements. The report says the overall rating stayed Good, but leadership needed to improve.
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing was sufficient, and medicines were handled safely.
“People's medicines were stored and administered safely by trained competent staff.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff understood people’s needs and had training and support to carry out their roles.
“People were supported by staff who had the skills, training and experience to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People’s privacy, dignity and choices were respected, and inspectors saw kind interactions.
“We observed that interactions between staff and people were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to take part in hobbies and activities of their choice, including regular outings into the community.
“People were actively involved in hobbies and activities of their liking.” from the report
Leadership knowledge
needs fixingThe manager was not aware of some important changes in legislation and guidance. The report says this could affect how the home meets people’s equality, communication and information needs.
“The registered manager had not kept themselves up to date with changes in legislation and good practise.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to bring the manager up to date with the Equality Act 2010 and its protected characteristics?
- 02How are people’s communication and information needs identified and recorded now?
- 03How do you check that medicines continue to be administered safely by trained staff?
- 04How will you make sure each person continues to have activities and outings that match their preferences?
- 05What changes have been made since the inspection to improve leadership and management?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; inspectors met all four people using the service but reviewed a sample of records, including one person’s care records. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 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 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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 Telford and Wrekin
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 £1,200 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.