Maple Cottage

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 46 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care was not person-centred. People’s potential, interests and skills were not adequately assessed. Detailed information about people’s needs was not recorded in their care plans and, where people’s needs had changed, this information was not updated. People’s care plans did not record what was important to them. This meant staff did not have clear guidelines on how to provide care which met people’s personalised preferences.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about whether the service was meeting people’s personalised needs in relation to their health and wellbeing. Relatives told us they did not always feel people’s changing needs were regularly reviewed to ensure their support continued to meet their needs and preferences.

Relatives said they did not always feel staff adequately supported people’s individual communication needs and preferences. We received mixed feedback about how well the provider supported people to maintain important relationships with family through regular contact and visits.

The provider was not able to demonstrate how they explored and promoted a wide range of person-centred activities for people. During the inspection we reviewed people’s daily care records and found limited evidence of meaningful activities and engagement. The provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor people’s social activities and engagement to ensure people were being supported to lead a full and active life.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people, so care was not always positive and consistent. We received mixed feedback from people’s relatives and health professionals about how well the provider worked in partnership with others to support people’s individual care needs.

Staff did not always demonstrate an understanding of people’s specific needs. For example, where people were experiencing periods of distress, staff had not always demonstrated an understanding of their specific emotional support needs and communication. This meant staff had not always responded in a considerate, positive and proactive way.

The provider did not always supply appropriate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff did not have accurate and detailed information about people’s communication needs. This meant they did not have guidance about how to provide information appropriately and in line with people’s personalised communication needs and preferences. Staff did not consistently use visual communication aids where appropriate to promote people’s communication and engagement.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. People and those important to them were not always consulted or involved in decisions about the care provided. Where people and their relatives had raised concerns or complaints, relatives told us the provider had not always responded promptly and appropriately to ensure a suitable outcome was reached. This meant people and their relatives did not always feel their concerns were listened to and resolved.

The provider had not always ensured appropriate information was in place to enable people to access services easily. There was a lack of guidance for staff about how to mitigate barriers linked to people’s communication and emotional support needs. For example, people did not always have detailed, personalised communication care plans in place. This meant staff did not have information about how to support people appropriately to minimise distress when accessing health care or receiving health treatment.

The provider was not able to demonstrate how they promoted equality in people’s care or empowered them to lead a full life. People were not always regularly supported to go out to places that were important to them or engage in meaningful activities in line with the principles of the Right support, right care, right culture guidance. The provider was not able to evidence how they had reviewed people’s daily care to understand and improve people’s quality of life.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. People’s care plans did not evidence how they were actively involved in planning for important life changes or discussing their future care needs.