Maple House

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. There was a keyworker system in place, with dedicated staff allocated to people. People’s care plans were subject to regular review, so they were up to date and accurately reflected their support needs. When asked whether their family was involved in their care planning, 1 person agreed they were, telling us, “[My relative] is happy with the way things are.” We saw evidence people were asked their views about the service through satisfaction surveys. This supported the delivery of person-centred care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. We saw the service had introduced weekly update reports, to improve communication with family members. This set out activities, staff on shift, key workers and other updates and information such as any changes to health needs. A relative said, “Improved access to records has become much easier, with a weekly report provided and monthly reports exchanged.” Feedback from people and their families was used to develop care plans and to personalise care. For example, a relative said, “There are now more activities and more activities for mental health. [Person] enjoys transport and travelling and [staff] take [person] out often.” This meant care was co-ordinated and responsive.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s preferred methods of communicating were clearly recorded in care plans for staff to follow. For example, 1 person’s care plan said, ‘Communicate with me through my PECS cards, communicate with me verbally in simple sentences.’ A familiar staff team understood people’s communication needs and how to provide information in an accessible way. A relative said, “[Person] has no major issues with communication, as most staff are long term.” During our visit to Maple House, we saw a person use their communication book to ask for some jellybeans from staff, who responded promptly to their request. A policy was in place to show how the service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. This included a commitment to, ‘Present information in various formats and adjust our communication skills to them to ensure people receive information which they can access and understand, and arrange communication support if people need it.’

The provider 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. A complaints process was in place, which showed any concerns were addressed and responded to, with the involvement of external bodies such as the local authority if required. A relative told us, “They are a wonderful group of staff – I can phone the [manager] if I am worried” and, “Management have taken my concerns seriously, and offer support where possible.” The service had also received a number of compliments.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We found care plans recorded how staff could support people to access medical appointments, through arranging them and attending alongside the person, supporting them with any communication needs and reasonable adjustments. The manager told us, “All 4 people respond well to accessing appointments. [Person] sometimes might not want to go, but [staff] follow [person’s] care plan and give [person] time to process the information.” The physical premises at Maple House were accessible, with all rooms on one level, and a safe enclosed garden area. Leaders were contactable at all times in case of any issues or concerns, through on-call telephone support.

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. The service was working in alignment with the CQC’s statutory guidance, ‘Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture’. This guidance states people with a learning disability and or autistic people are entitled to live their life as any other citizen. We found this to be the case. People had trips booked to holiday parks in the UK and abroad. A professional who works with the service told us, “[Person] participates in art activities. [Person] has also been helped to attend out of hours events such as an award ceremony celebrating [person’s] achievement of receiving an art fund.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. All of the people living at Maple House were younger adults and did not need specific end of life care plans. However, the service had sensitively planned how to support people’s emotional wellbeing should they experience a bereavement. A relative said, “Overall, [person] is in a good place and if anything happens to me, they (staff) will take care of [person].”