Maple Cottage

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to treating people with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect at all times. Whilst some positive interactions were observed during the inspection, people’s care plans and incident reports evidenced a poor use of language and a lack of dignity and respect in describing people’s needs and how people communicated when experiencing distress. For example, staff had used terms such as ‘loud and disruptive’, ‘rudely demanding’, ‘spiteful’ and ‘uncooperative’ to describe people’s interactions during incidents. This language did not demonstrate a compassionate and caring approach to understanding why the incident had taken place or what the person was communicating.

People and their relatives did not feel all staff were caring and respectful when providing support.

The interim management team told us they had identified concerns with staff’s use of language. They told us they were starting to address this directly with staff in team meetings and supervisions.

The provider had not always ensured people were treated as individuals. People’s care plans did not fully take account of their abilities, aspirations, unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were not always supported by staff who understood their individual needs. At the time of the inspection, recent changes in the staff team had impacted on the consistency of people’s support. Staff did not have sufficient guidance in place about people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs to ensure their care was tailored to their individual needs.

Staff had not always considered people’s individual social and emotional needs to minimise the risk of distress. People’s distress was documented as ‘behaviour’ without consideration for what people were trying to communicate or whether there was an unmet need which could be explored to minimise the risk of further distress.

The provider did not always promote people’s choice and control over their own care. People’s care plans did not provide staff with sufficient guidance about how to maintain people’s independence. For example, where people required support from staff with managing their personal care, their care plans did not contain information about what they could manage themselves or how to offer choice at each stage. This meant staff did not have clear guidance about how to encourage people to develop skills and independence.

People’s relatives did not always feel people’s preferences and choices were fully considered when planning activities. For example, relatives told us people were not regularly supported to go beyond the local area or to try new activities. The provider did not have processes in place to empower people to have their say about things that were important to them. People and those important to them were not regularly asked for their feedback.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Where people did not communicate using words, staff did not have sufficient guidance in place about how to understand their communication or how to anticipate and meet people’s needs quickly and in ways that reduced and mitigated people’s discomfort and distress.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support and enable staff to deliver person-centred care. At the time of the inspection, the registered managed had recently deregistered and staff were being supported by an interim management team and by the nominated individual. We received mixed feedback from staff about how valued and supported they felt and about staff morale within the service. Staff told us they had not always felt consulted or involved in decisions. They told us recent changes in the staffing and leadership of the service had not always been communicated effectively. Comments included, “They [Nominated Individual] don’t always communicate with staff”, “I don’t feel supported” and “It would be nice if they [managers] were more supportive of staff.”