Maplebrook 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. This key question has been rated requires improvement: This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

People appeared comfortable with staff, and interacted positively. For example, we observed a person appearing comfortable when talking to staff about what they wanted for lunch. Another person looked relaxed with staff while they discussed memories from their past. This was supported by feedback from people, which included, “The staff are fantastic; they couldn’t be better”, “They [staff] always knock on my door before entering my room; I think they treat me with dignity and respect,” and “The staff are lovely, kind and helpful.”

Staff demonstrated they were aware of how to treat people with kindness and compassion, and relatives also told us staff treated people in this way, with 1 relative informing us, “The staff are great; they are so good with my [relative],” and another saying, “I know my [relative] is well-cared for.”

The provider did not always make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities and aspirations.

Information contained within people’s care plans and risk assessments was not always person-centred. Care records demonstrated people were not participating in activities of their choosing on a regular basis. This was supported by feedback from people, relatives and staff, with 1 person saying, “It is a bit boring; there is nothing going on,” and staff telling us, “I would like activities where we could take people places.” When this was discussed with the registered manager, they told us they acknowledged activities were not being provided to meet people’s individual needs and they hoped this would improve once a new activity staff member started. This meant people were at risk of their individual interests and abilities not being encouraged and supported.

However, staff provided examples of how they treated people as individuals, which included supporting a person to have a diet which respected their religious and cultural needs and how they encouraged and supported a person to engage in religious celebrations.

Furthermore, staff and the provider told us that individual meal choices were supported around people’s preferences, and we observed people being offered alternative meal choices at lunchtime which were respected and acted upon.

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.

Most people and relatives told us they were not involved in the care planning process and information detailed with people’s care plans and risk assessments was not always person-centred, nor did they always contain guidance about how staff could support people to exercise independence, choice and control. The lack of activity opportunities for people meant they were unable to exercise choice and control and develop independent abilities and skills in areas of interest. Records showed, and the registered manager confirmed, people were not provided with regular opportunities in which they could raise matters with leaders. For example, within resident meetings or via people satisfaction surveys. This meant people were at risk of their independence, choice and control not being recognised, encouraged and supported.

We observed people being provided with choices at mealtimes. People were offered two meal options and where people told staff they wished for something different, this was respected and acted upon. People told us that although they had not been asked for feedback from the service, they felt staff listened to and respected their views, with people saying, “I give them my opinion anyway, I don’t need to be asked”, “Staff listen to what I want and mostly I get it,” and, “I feel like my opinion matters here.”

Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We did not always observe people’s needs being responded to promptly by staff. For example, we saw people waiting to receive their meals and waiting for essential equipment needed to meet their physical and mobility needs. We observed a person, whose care records detailed they needed to be supported to reposition on a regular basis, to remain in their wheelchair for much of our visit, without a pressure relieving cushion. We also found call-bells were activated by people and not responded to for significant periods of time. Call-bell audits supported this was regularly the case.

Staff told us staffing levels were not always adequate and a lack of equipment was observed being communicated by relatives to staff, with 1 relative telling us that this was an issue as well. Although the registered manager informed us that an additional staff member would be deployed daily on one of the floors, and additional wheelchairs had been obtained, these issues meant people were at risk of their needs not being responded to promptly by staff.

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

The registered manager told us how supervisions were designed to see how colleagues were as people and not just as colleagues and provided examples of how understanding and flexibility had been shown to staff to ensure they were able to maintain a positive work-life balance.

Most of the staff we spoke with felt supported by the provider and registered manager, with 1 staff member telling us, “I like the manager because they come into work early and go onto each floor to see if everybody is ok. They give support; they are good.”

This meant we were assured the provider cared about and promoted a culture which considered the wellbeing of staff.