You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Maple House. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 1 August 2018

Maple House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Maple House accommodates up to five people. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service. Maple House is a detached bungalow in a cul-de-sac in Colchester which forms part of a group of similar properties owned by the same provider. Each property is a distinct service, though there are some shared facilities and joint social events.

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on the 5 and 12 June 2018.

At the last inspection in April 2017, the service was rated as requires improvement. We had concerns people were not always safe as staff did not have correct advice about how to safeguard people from abuse and there were gaps in the recording of some medication. We also found staff did not always keep people’s information confidential. At this inspection we found the provider had addressed our concerns and we rated the service as good.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service could live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The registered manager was an effective leader and ran the service in an organised manner. There was a well-established and committed staff team well together n the registered manager’s absence. There were structured systems in place to check on the quality of the care being provided. When these checks found there were gaps or mistakes, senior staff ensured these were resolved. There was an open culture where the whole service learnt lessons and drove improvements.

Staff minimised the risks to people’s safety and knew what to do if they were concerned a person was at risk of abuse. Measures to reduce the spread of infection were extremely effective. There was enough safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.

Staff had the necessary skills to meet the complex needs of people at the service. The staff team felt well supported and communicated effectively to ensure support to people was consistent. People’s physical and mental wellbeing was promoted and they received support to access health and social care professionals when required.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. We found the registered manager and staff met their responsibility under the MCA. Where people were being restricted of their freedom, decisions were made in their best interest.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity. They communicated with people in a variety of ways to ensure their views were central to the care provided. People lived full lives and were supported by staff to develop their independence. Care plans were extremely person centred and provided staff with the necessary information to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. People and families were able to provide feedback and know they would be listened to and a

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 1 August 2018

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to support people to keep them safe and to minimise risk.

There were enough staff to meet people�s needs.

People received their medication safely and as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 1 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff had the specialist skills required to meet the complex needs of people at the service.

People received the necessary support to maintain good health and wellbeing and access professional support as required.

The service promoted people�s rights and acted in line with legislation when people did not have the capacity to make choices about their care.

Caring

Good

Updated 1 August 2018

The service was caring.

People received support from staff who knew them well.

Staff knew how to communicate with people and supported them to make choices about the care they received.

Staff promoted people�s independence and treated them with respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 1 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People lived life to the full, in line with their preferences.

Care plans were person centred and supported a service which was tailored to people�s needs.

People and their families felt able to feedback and raise concerns about the service.

There are arrangements in place should people require end of life care.

Well-led

Good

Updated 1 August 2018

The service was well led.

There was a registered manager in place who promoted a well ordered and person-centred service.

There were well defined roles and staff felt well supported.

There was a structured programme of audits and checks which resulted in an improved service.