CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mayo House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- There were enough staff to meet people's needs, although the home had a high number of vacancies. Medicines were stored securely and records checked by inspectors had no omissions or errors.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training relevant to people's needs and understood the Mental Capacity Act and least restrictive practice. The home worked with health and social care professionals to support people's health and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- People appeared comfortable and settled with staff, who treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to maintain contact with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was highly individualised. Staff helped people achieve personal goals, including hospital support, opening a bank account, travelling and taking part in activities that mattered to them.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found a strong person-centred culture and evidence that the home learned from difficult experiences. There were systems to monitor quality and safety, although the registered manager was temporarily seconded elsewhere.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Mayo House was rated Outstanding; inspectors found kind, safe and highly personalised care, with staff vacancies being managed.
The inspection visit took place on 20 December 2018. One inspector reviewed information before the visit, including the provider's information return and required notifications. The visit was unannounced, although the home was given 24 hours' notice so people would be present.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to live active and fulfilling lives.
The home had staff vacancies and used agency and bank staff to cover gaps. Inspectors also reviewed a significant loss of medicines, but found that changes had been made and medicine records checked during the inspection had no omissions or errors.
The overall rating remained Outstanding, as it had been at the previous inspection. The report says there was no evidence from this inspection or ongoing monitoring of serious risks or concerns.
Personalised support
Staff adapted support to people's communication, health needs, anxieties and preferences. Support plans were regularly reviewed and reflected people's current needs.
“Support plans were clear and gave good information about people's support needs.” from the report
Helping people achieve goals
Staff supported people to develop new skills and do things that had previously seemed too difficult, while managing risks positively.
“There was a strong sense at the service of empowering people to achieve their hopes and wishes.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared at ease with staff. Staff offered reassurance when people became distressed and encouraged independence while protecting privacy.
“People were treated with dignity, kindness and respect.” from the report
Strong leadership and learning
Managers were described as approachable, and the home showed a commitment to learning from incidents and improving practice.
“There was a positive approach to addressing difficulties faced by the service and a commitment to learn from difficult experiences.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were securely stored, staff had clear instructions and the sample of records checked by inspectors contained no omissions or errors.
“We viewed a sample of these and found no omissions or errors.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingThe home had a high number of permanent staff vacancies and relied on regular agency and bank staff to cover gaps. The report says this was being managed, but staff acknowledged it had created challenges.
“The manager was open and transparent about the high number of staff vacancies they currently had, but these were being managed.” from the report
Previous loss of medicines
needs fixingThe home reported that a significant quantity of medicines had been lost. The investigation did not establish what happened, although the home increased stock checks and took other preventive steps.
“The investigation had been inconclusive; however, steps had been taken to improve practice and prevent reoccurrence.” from the report
Temporary management arrangement
minorThe registered manager was seconded to another service during the inspection. A registered manager from another home was providing management support instead.
“However, at the time of our inspection they were seconded to another service within the trust.” from the report
- 01How are the current staff vacancies affecting staffing levels and continuity for each person?
- 02How many agency and bank staff are regularly used, and how do you make sure they know each person's needs?
- 03What further checks are now made after the significant loss of medicines?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home while the registered manager is seconded elsewhere?
- 05How do you support people to take positive risks while keeping them safe?
This inspection reviewed all five CQC questions and the overall rating; each rating remained the same as at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Mayo House was rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found highly individual care and strong leadership, with safe, effective and caring services rated Good.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 and 11 August 2016. They met all seven people living in the home, spoke with relatives, staff and health and social care professionals, and reviewed care records, staffing, medicines, training and quality checks.
The home supported people with complex needs, including behaviours that could be difficult to manage. Inspectors found people were safe, received their medicines as prescribed, and were supported by trained staff who knew them well. Staff also supported people's health needs and worked with outside professionals.
The strongest findings were about personalised support and leadership. People were helped to enjoy activities based on their interests, take part in decisions and keep relationships with family and friends. The home was rated Outstanding overall, with Responsive and Well-led rated Outstanding and Safe, Effective and Caring rated Good.
Personalised support
Care plans described people's routines, preferences, communication and interests in detail. Staff matched their approach and support to each person.
“People received person centred care and support.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to take part in individual activities at home and in the community, including sport, music, shopping, cooking and visits.
“They were offered a range of individual activities both at the service and in the local community based upon their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received training in positive behavioural support, communication, medicines and other areas linked to people's needs. They also received regular supervision.
“People were cared for by staff who had received training to meet people's needs.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team was experienced, approachable and focused on improving the service. Quality checks were used to identify and act on shortfalls.
“The provider had sophisticated systems in place to check on the quality of service people received and any shortfalls identified were acted upon.” from the report
Support with healthcare
Staff worked persistently with healthcare professionals and adapted arrangements to help people attend difficult appointments and receive treatment.
“Staff had worked to ensure people had fair and equal access to healthcare services.” from the report
Family communication
minorOne relative said they were not as involved as they wished to be. The home had begun weekly emails and introduced guidance to improve communication.
“Feedback from relatives of one person was not so positive, with them feeling they were not as involved as they would wish to be.” from the report
- 01How will you involve our family member and keep us informed about their care and support?
- 02How are risk assessments reviewed when our relative's behaviour, health or daily activities change?
- 03What training and experience will the staff supporting our relative have, including in positive behavioural support and communication?
- 04How will you support our relative to take part in activities and maintain relationships that matter to them?
- 05How will you help our relative access healthcare appointments and communicate their needs to health professionals?
This was an unannounced full inspection covering all five key questions; inspectors did not carry out a SOFI 2 observation because they considered it would be too intrusive in people's flats. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 2017 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Mayo House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Outstanding rating throughout.
- February 2019Outstandingcurrent ratingstayed OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- January 2017OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 November 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Gloucestershire
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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.