Maplebrook Care Home

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people.

People informed us they had not been involved in the assessment and care planning process and were not aware of what their care plans detailed about them, with 1 person saying, “I have not been involved in my care plan.” However, relatives said they were kept informed about changes to their relation’s needs.

Information contained within people’s care records was not always person-centred. For example, where people required support to manage identified needs, their care plans and risk assessments did not always include personalised information. Where information was documented, it did not always contain sufficient detail or guidance to ensure people’s individualised needs could be met.

We found people were not being regularly supported to engage in activities which reflected their interests and abilities, with the feedback we received from people, relatives, staff and the registered manager supporting this.

Although some staff we spoke with demonstrated an awareness of people’s individual preferences, and we observed people offered choices at mealtimes, the lack of people involvement and personalised care records meant there was a risk people were consistently receiving person-centred care.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up or supportive of choice and continuity.

Although the registered manager advised there were systems and processes to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed, as detailed in other sections of this report, processes were not always effective in ensuring people’s care records were accurate. This meant staff did not always have guidance relating to people’s needs to ensure they achieved positive outcomes.

We reviewed safety event records which detailed incidents of risk and harm which were not reported to external healthcare professionals, which could have enabled joined-up collaboration and greater understanding and learning. This meant we were not always assured the service had a good understanding of people’s health needs and worked effectively with community health services.

However, staff told us they were aware of people’s health needs and how they supported people to meet these needs in consultation with external healthcare professionals, and we observed healthcare professionals visiting people during our inspection.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We saw people were able to communicate with each other and with staff using verbal language. Staff showed a good awareness of how people’s communication needs can be affected by particular situations and how they were feeling. For example, staff were seen anticipating a potential barrier to a person being able to communicate and providing them with the opportunity to communicate their feelings in a different environment, which enabled the person to feel more comfortable.

Communication care plans were in place and most detailed how people chose to communicate and some documented how information should be made available to them.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People told us they were not involved in their care planning processes, and we observed people were not provided with regular opportunities in which they could raise matters with leaders, whether that be within resident meetings or via people satisfaction surveys. This meant people were at risk of not being involved in their care.

There was a complaints policy in place, however, and as we were unable to review any recent complaints records, the provider explained how they would respond to complaints should these be received, including informing staff to support learning.

Relatives and most people we spoke with did not raise any concerns about the care provided. They told us they felt able to make a complaint should they need to, and relatives informed us staff kept them updated with changes to their relation’s needs.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff did not always respond in a timely way when people needed help. We found staffing levels and a shortage of equipment were factors which contributed to this, which was demonstrated by our observations, staff feedback and care records., While some care records demonstrated people were able to access services, including external healthcare services and professionals, other care records such as safety events documentation failed to show access to such services was always sought when this might have been required. This meant not all people had equitable access to external support when needed.

Staff and leaders did not always act upon information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People did not have regular access to activities, and some people did not experience equal levels of social stimulation. There was no activities coordinator providing people with consistent activities support at the service, and staff told us the impact this had on people receiving care.

We also observed people who were provided care in their bedrooms experienced little social stimulation, with people’s doors closing when staff left their rooms. This meant people using the service were not benefiting from social and emotional stimulation, which impacted on inclusiveness and people’s wellbeing. We raised this with the registered manager, who acknowledged the concerns and described the challenges they had experienced in trying to ensure people were being provided with greater social interaction.

Although we did not observe alternative arrangements provided to people who were provided their care in bed, on the first day of our inspection, people who were not cared-for in beds were observed engaging in a festive dinner party, which many people appeared to enjoy.

An equality and diversity policy was in place, and staff had received equality and diversity training. This provided assurance the service was aware of some of the challenges people faced in experiencing equitable outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People had care plans which clearly documented their wishes and the arrangements in place for important life changes.

This meant the provider had considered this aspect of people’s care as something that required care planning as people’s needs changed.