Maryland Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service registered on 15 December 2021. This key question has been rated requires improvement. Although people felt well-supported, cared for and treated with dignity and respect, people’s records did not always best evidence this.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Although we were assured the provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, and respected their privacy and dignity and staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect, the provider’s failure to detect and manage risks to people did not demonstrate a sufficiently caring attitude.

The provider’s failure to ensure people were involved in the formulation of their care plans, compromised people’s dignity. As important information about people was not always recorded and maintained, there was a risk people may not have felt valued and respected.

However, throughout the day, we saw staff supporting people’s needs in a prompt, warm manner. It was obvious people felt comfortable in the company of staff and staff knew people well. Staff maintained people’s dignity and people looked well dressed and cared for.

People’s relatives were made welcome and visited without any restrictions. Relatives told us, “I am always made to feel welcome, and I can visit day and night” and “Every other day I come in and the staff are so welcoming, lovely staff here.”

People and their relatives were positive about the staff at the home and the care and support they received.

Comments from people included, “I love it here, the staff are all good” and “I have the same staff, they are kind and so caring.” A relatives told us, “It’s a consistent staff team here, they know my mum well and know how to calm here.”

Staff were keen to tell us how they treated people with kindness and dignity. One member of staff told us, “We get to know people well and we treat them with kindness and respect and with dignity."

We were not always assured the provider treated people as individuals or made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Although staff confirmed they treated people as individuals and provided care and support in a way in which people preferred, as some people did not have completed care plans and risk assessments in place, we could not be sure essential person-centred information was properly captured.

Some people’s care plans contained person centred and sensitive information about people’s life story which helped staff get to know people as a person, and the person they were before their admittance to the home. However, this was not consistently completed for everyone.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We could not be fully assured people’s independence was promoted. As some people’s care plans were incomplete, this potentially deprived people of having a say and exercising control over their own care and treatment. As some people’s capacity to consent had not been assessed, there was a risk unnecessary restriction may have been placed on people, thereby limiting their independence and lifestyle.

However, staff were keen to tell us they promoted people’s independence and provided choice to people wherever they could. This was confirmed by people who told us, “Staff know my routines well and respect that” and “Staff help me but respect my independence.”

We were not assured the provider always supported people to follow their interests. There was a lack of meaningful and engaging activities for people. We observed for large parts of the day people were sat in a communal lounge gathered around a TV on the wall with little stimulation. This did not help to promote people’s emotional well-being. One person told us, “There could be more activities. Nobody goes in the garden.” Relatives told us, “There are no activities, and I don’t see anyone coming in, there’s no stimulation here for people” and “There’s not many activities for people here, only watching TV.”

We looked at people’s daily written records which did not always give information about the person's general well-being. As some people’s care plans were blank, it was not always possible to tell if people had genuine choice and control over their care and support and how they wanted to spend their day.

We could not always be assured the provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes.

Although staff understood people’s needs and responded to them to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress, staff were potentially deprived of valuable information about people’s needs, views and wishes as some care plans were incomplete.

This was important as people’s care plans should outline a person's specific health and care needs, their goals, and preferences for receiving support, and help to ensure staff provide consistent and personalised care that met people’s individual's physical, emotional, and social needs.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We received positive feedback from staff who told us the provider valued and respected their well-being. Staff told us the provider offered them the support they required to help ensure the delivery of person-centred care. One member of staff told us, “I feel valued and supported, I am so happy here and have no concerns about anyone here.” We observed the registered manager adopting a ‘hands on’ role within the home.

The registered manager told us how they had adapted shifts for some staff to assist them with their childcare responsibilities.