The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Maidment Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

47 Parkstone Road, Poole, Dorset, BH15 2NX (01202) 674423

Provided and run by:
Methodist Homes

All Inspections

1 and 3 June 2015

During a routine inspection

Maidment Court is registered to accommodate and provide personal care for up to 45 people. The home aims to meet the needs of older people, including those living with dementia. At the time of this inspection there were 37 people living at the home.

There was a registered manager at the home at the time of the inspection but they had been away for several months and there was an acting manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This was an unannounced inspection carried out over two days on 1 and 3 June 2015.

We received consistently good feedback about the service from people and their family members. One person told us, “The staff are always very patient, always smiling, always very helpful and I am always clean, well dressed and well fed”. Another individual said, “I feel safe and secure. Kind well trained staff and great compassion. A good place to live”.

People or their representatives felt that the home provided a safe service. Staff had received training in safeguarding people and understood how to raise a concern. The provider ensured people’s rights were protected when planning and delivering care and support.

People told us staff were skilled and responsive. We saw a thorough induction process supported new staff to understand their role, along with ongoing training, supervision and support for all staff to make sure they understood how to safely and effectively care or support people.

People or their representatives had been included in planning how care and treatment was provided. People told us that they made decisions about their lives, and we saw examples throughout the inspection that evidenced staff asked people how they wanted to be supported and then followed their directions.

The home ensured staff understood and acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 including the deprivation of liberty safeguards. This ensured people were asked for their consent before staff provided care or support, and where people did not have mental capacity to consent to care or treatment the staff acted in their best interests.

People and relatives told us the key strength of the home was in the caring attitude of staff. One person said, “Lovely people, if they can help you at all they do, we are very lucky, I don’t know what we would do without them. I am very happy”. Another person told us the staff were, “very kind, they do everything you ask them to do”.

Staff knew the people they were supporting well and supported individuals to maintain their independence as much as possible. People told us they enjoyed activities and said there was enough to do. The manager confirmed people were involved in planning activities. They checked people were satisfied on a regular basis through activity audits and residents meetings.

The service was well led. Staff told us the management team listened to any suggestions or concerns and were available for advice and guidance. There were robust systems in place to ensure they knew they were offering a safe, effective, caring and responsive service.

10 April 2013

During a routine inspection

This was a scheduled inspection. During the inspection we spoke to six individuals who lived at Maidment court, two relatives or visitors and nine members of staff. We also spoke to a visiting social care professional.

We pathway tracked four of the forty-four people who lived at the home. This involved observing people's experience within the home, reviewing their records, talking to them and staff involved in their care.

A member of staff we spoke with told us Maidment Court was a 'really happy environment' for people. An individual we spoke with told us 'I am happy here'.

Records showed the provider had suitable arrangements in place for obtaining consent from people to the care or support they received.

We found that people's needs were assessed prior to moving into Maidment court and that care plans were person centred and regularly reviewed. One individual we spoke with told us 'I think its [Maidment Court] wonderful, I have no complaints'.

We assessed the environment of the home as part of the inspection and found it was a suitable for the people who lived there. We noted regular checks and audits were carried out by the provider to ensure the safety of premises.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

27 July 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our visit we spoke with ten people, two visitors and eight care workers.

The manager had been recently appointed and told us they had applied to the Care Quality Commission to become the registered manager for Maidment Court. At the time of our inspection there were 40 people living at the home.

We observed that staff were polite, respectful and caring in their interactions with people. We noted staff used first names according to the person's preference. Staff valued opportunities to talk with people when time allowed. One person we spoke with said 'staff are always respectful and polite'.

We found people's care plans were up to date and were completed, signed and dated. Care plans were audited to ensure they had been completed correctly. One person we spoke with told us 'staff are very good indeed, very kind and helpful'.

The home had a range of relevant policies and procedures which included safeguarding vulnerable adults and whistle-blowing. Staff had completed a range of relevant training to ensure they understood how to support individuals living at Maidment Court.

There were suitable quality assurance systems in place to monitor service provision.

20 February 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We visited the home unannounced on 20 and 24 February 2012 following concerns identified during vulnerable adult safeguarding investigations and by the Primary Care Trust (PCT) Pharmacy team.

At the time of the inspection there were 41 people living at the home accommodated over four floors. We spoke with six people, four staff and the manager.

People we spoke with said that overall they receive the care they need but that staff did not have enough time to spend time with them. People told us that they sometimes missed baths and had to use their call bell to remind staff that they needed a personal care task completing.

They said that staff were busy and that there were not enough staff and they understood that there were lots of other people who needed help in the home.

People spoke well of the qualities of staff and said they were caring.

We found that there were serious shortfalls in the assessments of and the monitoring of risks for people. There were not any systems to monitor the safety of people who were at risk.

Care records were incomplete and care plans for people were not consistently reviewed. Maidment Court was not able to demonstrate that they were providing the care and treatment people needed.

Some medicine records were not signed to show that people had medication as prescribed, a controlled drug was incorrectly administered and some medication ran out. It took staff over two and half hours to administer the morning medication which meant that people had to wait for their medicines.

There were insufficient staff to meet the needs of people living at the home.

That manager was not able to show that they were effectively reviewing the quality of the service.

Following the inspection the registered provider informed us that the manager had left. The registered provider advised us of the arrangements put in place to ensure a management presence and support within the home.