Maple Leaf Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment, and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. However, during our first visit we identified gaps and missing information relating to the needs of one person. This person’s information had not been put onto the electronic care records system, and we were not assured sufficient information was gathered prior to them moving in to establish their needs. When we returned, we found that additional information had been sourced from the person themselves, their relatives and professionals involved, and it had also been inputted onto the providers electronic care records. We found the gaps and missing information had been addressed and the result was an up-to-date comprehensive assessment of this person’s needs.

Staff told us that care plans and risk assessments were accurate and ensured they knew people’s individual needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were supported to attend health appointments and the provider worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure care and treatment was evidence based and in line with current good practice. Care plans and risk assessments were kept under review and where a change to treatment or response to risk was identified this was communicated to staff. Work was done with individuals receiving care to involve them in decisions relating to their care and support.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Information relating to individual needs was clear and concise with information being gathered from a variety of sources including health and social care services.

We received positive feedback form professionals involved, one professional said, “We have a longstanding relationship with the home, and I have found them responsive and caring.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. We saw where staff were encouraging one person to follow exercise that was being shown on a television. Another person was supported to attend a local gym, and they told us they felt able to increase their levels of fitness.

Food was freshly prepared and in line with people’s individual preferences, whilst there was not a focus on healthy eating, we did not find anything of concern in the varied food that was being offered.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Further improvements to monitoring the outcomes for people were being trialled by the registered manager and staff were being supported to understand the expectations around people’s experiences of care and support in the service.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

We saw that on occasions staff had not always action people’s choices in a timely way. We saw where one person had asked to go out, the staff member had agreed stating that they just needed to complete the task they were doing. However, when we visited this person 2 hours later, they were still waiting to go out. The staff member told us that they were now not intending to go out. This had not been communicated effectively to the person. When we raised this with the registered manager, they took immediate steps to address this, and the person subsequently went out to their chosen activity. This event also triggered a review and subsequent improvement by the registered manager to how people’s outcomes were measured and monitored.

Where people required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) these were up to date and were in line of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). For one person who was voicing a choice regarding their care provision steps were being taken to ensure they had the support to ensure they were able to make informed choices and assess their capacity to make these choices.