We carried out a review of the data available to us about Maple House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Maple House, you can give feedback on this service.
Maple House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people who have a learning disability and other complex needs. Maple House is situated in a residential area of Folkestone with access to the town centre, leisure centre and public transport. Six people were living at the service at the time of inspection and each had their own personalised bedroom with wash basin. People had access to a lounge, dining room, a kitchen, two bathrooms, toilets and a large garden.
The service had a registered manager, who was also registered manager for the service located next door and who was present throughout the inspection. 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.
Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when they should. People were supported to maintain good health and attended appointments and check-ups. Health needs were kept under review and referrals were made when required. People were supported in a safe environment and risks had been identified, and were managed in a way that enabled and encouraged people to live as independent a life as possible.
At this inspection records were in good order and contained current information that was clearly laid out; making them easy to use.
Staff understood how to protect people from the risk of abuse. They had received safeguarding training and were aware of how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Staff knew about the whistle blowing policy and were confident they could raise any concerns with the provider or outside agencies if needed.
Equipment and the premises received regular checks and servicing in order to ensure it was safe. The registered manager monitored incidents and accidents to make sure the care provided was safe. Emergency plans were in place so if an emergency happened, like a fire, the staff knew what to do.
A robust system to recruit new staff was in place; this helped to make sure that people were supported by staff that were fit to do so. Throughout the day and night there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s assessed needs. When staff first started to work at the service they were supported to complete an induction programme. Staff continued to be supported with ongoing training, support and supervision. Staff meetings took place. These all gave opportunity for staff to share ideas and discuss any issues.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Systems were in place to check if people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty. Systems were in operation to obtain consent from people and to comply with the MCA. People were supported to make decisions and choices about all aspects of their lives.
Staff encouraged people to be involved and feel included in their environment. People were offered activities and participated in social activities when they chose to do so. Staff knew people and their support needs well. The care and support needs of each person were different, and each person’s care plan was personal to them. People had detailed care plans, risk assessments and guidance in place to help staff to support them in an individual way.
Staff were caring, kind and respected people’s privacy and dignity. There were positive and caring interactions between the staff and people and people were comfortable and at ease with the staff.
People were encouraged to eat and drink enough and were offered choices around their meals and hydration needs. Staff understood people’s likes and dislikes and dietary requirements and promoted people to eat a healthy diet.
Staff told us that the service was well led and that they felt very supported by the registered manager to make sure they could support and care for people safely and effectively. Staff said they could go to the registered manager at any time and they would be listened to and suggestions discussed. Quality assurance audits were carried out to identify any shortfalls within the service and how the service could improve. The registered manager had good management oversight and was able to assist us in all aspects of our inspection.
Maple House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people who have a learning disability and other complex needs. Maple House is situated in a residential area of Folkestone with access to the town centre, leisure centre and public transport. Six people were living at the service at the time of inspection and each had their own personalised bedroom with wash basin. People had access to a lounge, dining room, a kitchen, two bathrooms, toilets and a large garden.
The service had a registered manager, who was also registered manager for the service located next door and who was present throughout the inspection. 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.
Records were not always easy to navigate as they often contained old information that was no longer required or current.
Medicines were not always managed safely or administered in line with current guidance. People received their medicines when they should.
People were supported in a safe environment and risks identified for people were managed in a way that enabled people to live as independent a life as possible. People were supported to maintain good health and attended appointments and check-ups. Health needs were kept under review and appropriate referrals were made when required.
A system to recruit new staff was in place. This was to make sure that the staff employed to support people were fit to do so. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to make sure people were safe and received the care and support that they needed.
Staff had completed induction training when they first started to work at the service. Staff were supported during their induction, monitored and assessed to check that they had attained the right skills and knowledge to be able to care for, support and meet people’s needs. There were staff meetings, so staff could discuss any issues and share new ideas with their colleagues, to improve people’s care and lives.
People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training. They were aware of how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. Staff knew about the whistle blowing policy and were confident they could raise any concerns with the provider or outside agencies if needed.
Equipment and the premises received regular checks and servicing in order to ensure it was safe. The registered manager monitored incidents and accidents to make sure the care provided was safe. Emergency plans were in place so if an emergency happened, like a fire, the staff knew what to do.
The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Some people at the service had been assessed as lacking mental capacity to make complex decisions about their care and welfare. At the time of the inspection the registered manager had applied for DoLS authorisations for people who were at risk of having their liberty restricted.
Staff encouraged people to be involved and feel included in their environment. People were offered activities and participated in social activities when they chose to do so. Staff knew people and their support needs well. The care and support needs of each person were different, and each person’s care plan was personal to them. People had detailed care plans, risk assessments and guidance in place to help staff to support them in an individual way.
Staff were caring, kind and respected people’s privacy and dignity. There were positive and caring interactions between the staff and people and people were comfortable and at ease with the staff.
People were encouraged to eat and drink enough and were offered choices around their meals and hydration needs. Staff understood people’s likes and dislikes and dietary requirements and promoted people to eat a healthy diet.
Staff told us that the service was well led and that they felt supported by the registered manager to make sure they could support and care for people safely and effectively. Staff said they could go to the registered manager and senior management at any time and they would be listened to. Quality assurance audits were carried out to identify any shortfalls within the service and how the service could improve. The registered manager had good management oversight and was able to assist us in all aspects of our inspection.
We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this report.
The interactions we observed between staff and people using the service were friendly and respectful. Staff responded positively to people's needs, and people using the service appeared comfortable in approaching and talking or communicating with staff. The staff we spoke with were able to describe in detail the needs and preferences of people using the service.
People took part in a variety of activities, inside and outside the service. This depended on their interests and the time of year, but included horseriding, trampolining, and gardening. The service had a minibus so that people could go out with staff.
People had their physical healthcare needs met.
Food in the home was stored appropriately. People had flexible eating times, and access to the kitchen, though required support to make food and drinks. Menu planning was led by staff, but people using the service were asked for their preferences.
Medication was stored, handled and administered safely.
The building was adequately maintained and the necessary checks and servicing were routinely completed.
Records were maintained and stored securely.
Staff told us that they enjoyed their work, had good access to training and felt supported. A member of staff told us, 'I definitely have the training I need to do my job'. Although staff received regular supervision it was not clear whether annual appraisals took place. The manager, who recently re-joined Maple House told us this was being addressed.
We found that the care planning process was person centred and plans had been reviewed in the last two months. However, annual reviews did not take place consistently. People we spoke to responded positively when we asked them about their care. Additionally, systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service overall.
Maple House was clean and well maintained. We heard about plans to replace the carpet in the hall, stairway and landing later this year.
People expressed that they felt safe and comfortable at Maple House. People looked relaxed and at ease with each other and with the staff.
People told us that they enjoyed going out especially to do gardening and play football. People's hobbies were supported.
One person said that they were happy with their room and that staff helped them to keep it clean.
People had support to keep in touch with and visit family and friends.