Mayflower Court

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were generally known and met.

This service scored 68 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The management team did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Not all care plans had been updated to reflect people’s current needs meaning staff may not have access to current information when allocated tasks via the providers electronic systems to ensure peoples’ needs were met. For example, a person had returned home from hospital and was no longer independent in eating. However, care staff stated they were unable to support them with their meals as this was not on the care plan. Information about other people’s needs and actions staff should take, lacked detail or were inconsistent with other information within care plans and risk assessments. This placed people at risk of not receiving person centred care.

Whilst the management team understood the diverse health and care needs of people and the local community there were some shortfalls in continuity of care for people. Staff views on the continuity of where they worked within Mayflower Court varied with some liking to stay in one area whilst others felt it was important for staff to work in all areas. Care staff in one area of the home said they had not previously worked in that area and did not know people well. Other staff said they usually worked in the same area of the home and had got to know people well. Where staff had not previously worked with people the lack of some information in care plans meant there may be a risk of people not receiving the care they required.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People's communication needs were identified during their initial assessment and were documented within their care records. This included information about people's communication needs and any additional equipment such as hearing aids or spectacles that may be required. The activities schedule was displayed for people in both an ordinary format and an easy read format. At lunch time staff showed sample plates to help support some people to choose their meal.

The management team made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The provider had a complaints procedure in place with people and family members provided with information as to how to complain via the service brochure. This information was also available in the entrance area. There was a process to record and investigate concerns and complaints.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Discussions with the management team showed they understood how to access specialist health or social care support should this be required. The management team confirmed that staff were available to support people to attend hospital or other appointments if they were unable to attend on their own. The management team understood how to access other community services such as opticians should this be required.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. People and family members did not identify any concerns about discrimination. Care staff had undertaken equality and diversity training.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. The service could provide end of life care where this became appropriate. We were assured this would be undertaken with the support of relevant health staff and care staff would be supported. Staff would know about people’s individual wishes in respect of resuscitation or level of emergency treatment via the providers handheld electronic system.