CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mayflower House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Medicines were managed safely, but some risk assessments were missing at the inspection and were put in place quickly.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people received help from GPs and other health professionals when needed. Some best-interest decisions were not clearly recorded, and DoLS applications had not been submitted at the time of the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were supported with privacy, dignity, independence, personal choices and religious or spiritual needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff knew people's routines, preferences and changing needs. There were organised and informal activities, although inspectors said more could happen in the mornings.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team knew people well, welcomed feedback and used audits to improve the service. Staffing had been reviewed because of recruitment and retention issues, with trained bank staff used to support consistency.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Mayflower House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records and handover arrangements needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 26 and 27 February 2018. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people, visitors, staff and a GP. They observed care and mealtimes, reviewed four people's care, and checked staff records, medicines, equipment and quality monitoring.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and families generally said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff to meet essential needs, safe medicines management, suitable training and good access to health professionals.
Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported activities, food preferences and end-of-life care. They also found some gaps, including missing risk assessments, unclear recording of some best-interest decisions, delayed DoLS applications and handover records that could be lost. Some of these issues were addressed during or shortly after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, kindness and respect. People were supported to make choices and keep their independence.
“People received care which was kind and respected them as individuals.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff who gave medicines were trained and regularly checked as competent. Records, stock checks and audits supported safe medicines management.
“People received their medicines safely from care staff who had received specific training to safely carry out this task.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's individual needs, routines and preferences. Care plans were regularly reviewed, and families were involved in updates and decisions.
“Staff we met, and observed, knew people well and were able to provide care that was personalised to their individual needs and wishes.” from the report
Good health and food support
Staff monitored people's health and worked with healthcare professionals. Meals and drinks were adapted to people's preferences and dietary safety needs.
“People had their health needs met.” from the report
Open management
The management team was visible and approachable. The provider used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality and make improvements.
“The provider had effective quality assurance systems which ensured standards were maintained and constantly looked at ways to improve practice.” from the report
Some risk assessments were missing
needs fixingAt the inspection, there were no risk assessments to guide staff about some risks linked to choking, diabetes and one person's medicines. These were put in place quickly and shared with staff.
“However, there was no risk assessment in place to guide staff how to minimise the risk.” from the report
DoLS applications had not yet been submitted
needs fixingThe home had considered DoLS, but applications had not been submitted when inspectors visited. The manager later said submissions had begun.
“DoLS had been considered for the people living in the home however, they had not been submitted at the point of the inspection.” from the report
Some best-interest decisions were unclear
needs fixingCare records did not always clearly show when decisions were made in a person's best interests. The manager agreed to review the wording.
“However, this was not always clearly recorded in care records.” from the report
Handover records could be lost
needs fixingThe handover system used a board and book, but information could be wiped off before all staff had read it. Electronic handovers were arranged by the end of the inspection.
“The records were vulnerable to being wiped off before all staff had read them and could mean no record was kept.” from the report
More morning activities could be offered
minorThe home provided activities and trips, but inspectors thought more could happen in the morning. The manager said this would be looked into.
“We commented that more could happen for people in the morning which the registered manager said they would look into.” from the report
- 01Have all required DoLS applications now been submitted, and how do you keep track of their progress?
- 02How are best-interest decisions recorded now, and can families see the relevant care records?
- 03How do electronic handovers work, and how do you make sure every staff member reads important information?
- 04What morning activities are now available for people who want them?
- 05How do you check that risk assessments for choking, diabetes and medicines remain up to date?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 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 Mayflower House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 April 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Plymouth
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.
8 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.