• Care Home
  • Care home

Maple House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

23 Manor Road, Aldershot, Hampshire, GU11 3DG (01252) 325753

Provided and run by:
Jasmine Care Holdings Limited

All Inspections

14 November 2017

During a routine inspection

Maple House provides residential accommodation and nursing care for up to 51 older people, including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 49 people were living in the home.

This inspection took place on 14 and 15 November 2017, and was unannounced.

At the last inspection in August 2015 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Although the service was rated Good at the last inspection the Safe domain was rated Requires Improvement as we found recruitment processes did not always evidence that people had been protected from the risks of unsuitable staff. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and people were protected from harm by robust recruitment processes.

Why the service is rated Good

There was a registered manager in post. However the registered manager had been promoted to regional manager and the new manager was in the process of submitting their application to be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were processes and practices in place to keep people safe. People told us they felt safe living in Maple House and with the staff who supported them.

People received effective care and support because staff understood their personal needs and abilities. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. The provider had a programme of training which ensured staff had up to date guidance and information. People were always consulted fully before any care and support commenced.

People said they received support from staff who were always “polite and kind.” One person said, “They are all very nice here; I wouldn’t have it any other way.” A visiting relative said, “I have never heard a cross word they are all very nice and kind.”

There was a full programme of activities for people to take part in and the service had built up close relationships with the local community and school.

Staff were supported to develop their skills through training, staff meetings and one to one conversations. One staff member said, “The training is excellent, couldn’t ask for more. If we see something we would like training in we only have to mention it and the manager will source it for us.”

People and staff were supported by a manager who was approachable and listened to any suggestions they had for continued development of the service provided.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, ensure staff kept up to date with good practice and to seek people’s views.

18 and 19 August 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 18 and 19 August 2015 and was unannounced. Maple House provides residential accommodation and nursing care for up to 57 older people, including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 50 people were living in the home.

The home is a Victorian four storey building, with stairs and lifts providing access between floors. Some corridors were narrow and winding. There was an enclosed sensory garden with shaded seating outdoors. A sensory garden provides people with stimulation of their senses, such as smell, sight, touch and sound, through the plants and ornaments used. This can provide people with comfort and prompt reminiscence.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

Recruitment processes did not always evidence that people had been protected from the risks of unsuitable staff. Some checks, such as identity and criminal records checks, had been completed satisfactorily. However, the provider had not ensured that investigation into and explanation of gaps in applicants’ employment history had always been recorded. Evidence of suitable conduct in previous relevant employment positions had not always been requested. The registered manager was able to provide evidence that these concerns had been satisfactorily addressed following our inspection. We have made a recommendation that the provider reviews their recruitment policy to ensure it documents all the requirements of Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014.

People were protected from harm, because staff understood indicators of abuse and the process to raise concerns. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were managed because they had been identified, and actions implemented to reduce the risk of harm. For example, staff were trained in actions to take in the event of an emergency, and equipment was regularly checked and serviced.  

Staffing levels were sufficient to provide people with a prompt response when they called for assistance, and to ensure their care needs were met as they wished. 

People took their prescribed medicines at the same time daily. Nurses administered prescribed medicines safely, and completed medicines records appropriately. Medicines were stored and disposed of safely, in accordance with the provider’s policy and NHS guidelines.

Staff completed and refreshed training to ensure they acquired and maintained the skills required to support and care for people effectively. Learning was evaluated to ensure staff retained these skills. Regular supervisory meetings and staff meetings provided opportunities to review staff needs and aspirations, and address any issues or concerns.

People were asked for their consent before care or treatment was provided.  When they had been assessed as lacking the mental capacity to make specific decisions about their care, or people’s liberty had been restricted to protect them from identified risks, the process of assessing their mental capacity to make specific decisions and best interest decisions had been documented. Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been appropriately submitted.

People were supported to maintain a diet sufficient to protect them from the risks of malnutrition and dehydration. Mealtimes were a sociable occasion, with support provided for those who required assistance to eat or drink.

People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing. Nurses liaised with the GP and other health professionals to ensure people’s health needs were managed effectively.

People told us staff were caring and respectful, and we saw this demonstrated in the care people experienced. People were encouraged to make decisions about the care and support they received through the choices they were offered. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes were documented to ensure they experienced care in accordance with their wishes.

Staff were respectful of people’s privacy, and valued the time they spent with people. They enjoyed helping people feel content in the home.

Staff understood people’s care and support needs. They reviewed these regularly with people or their lawful representatives to ensure they received care that supported their health and welfare needs.

A range of activities were provided to participate in, and people were encouraged to join in group activities. They were supported in one to one sessions to reduce their social isolation when they chose or were unable to participate in group activities.

People and their relatives were encouraged to provide feedback on their care and wishes. The registered manager encouraged people to share minor concerns promptly, so that these could be addressed before they escalated. The provider’s complaints procedure assured people that formal concerns would be addressed appropriately.  

People were supported to live the life they chose. Nurses trained in palliative care ensured people were supported to die with dignity and without pain. Staff displayed the provider’s values when supporting people, as they promoted their dignity and celebrated cultural differences. Staff were encouraged to make suggestions to drive improvements to people’s care, and responded positively to criticism to deliver high quality care for people.

People told us the home was well managed, and staff respected the registered manager. The registered manager ensured appropriate actions were taken to drive improvements to the quality of care people experienced when issues were identified.

19 May 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection was carried out by one adult social care CQC inspector. On the day of our inspection 47 people used the service. We spoke with four people who use the service and three people's relatives, three care workers and one nurse. In addition we spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, the maintenance manager and the activities co-ordinator.

We observed how staff supported people, and looked at documents including care plans and management reports. People were provided with care appropriate to their needs, such as nursing or dementia care.

We considered information from a number of sources to decide on the focus of the inspection. All of the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected was used to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff supported people with patience, respect and care. They treated people with dignity and promoted their independence. We saw people and staff smiling and enjoying the day. One person who usesthe service told us 'We do some lovely activities here sometimes with people from outside and that's always nice. We do get out quite a bit too, those that want to'.

Staff told us they considered people as members of their family, and enjoyed coming to work to spend time with them. The registered manager had commissioned specialist training for staff in dementia awareness, palliative and end of life care to improve the quality of life people experienced.

Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. We saw staff followed guidance to ensure people were supported as they wished. They promoted people's independence and encouraged them to make choices, for example about meals, clothing and activities, and listened to their responses.

Is the service responsive?

The service responded promptly to ensure people were supported appropriately. People and their relatives were involved in setting up their plan of care, and reviewing this to ensure it remained up to date. Staff ensured care was provided as people wished. One person said 'I'm very happy with the way they look after my health. We have nurses all the time, the doctor and dentist when you need and they check our eyesight regularly too. I don't have to go anywhere. They all come here'.

We saw people had access to a range of activities, held in the home and local community. People were supported and encouraged to attend. Links with the local community were encouraged and supported.

As people's needs altered we saw that care plans were updated to reflect the changes in the care they required. For example, to support people with reduced mobility or to address nutritional concerns. The provider's complaints policy provided a formal opportunity for people to raise concerns.

A relative explained how the manager had quickly addressed a concern they had expressed. One person told us, 'I did have a problem once which my relative told the manager about and it was sorted out straight away. They are very 'no nonsense' here and get on with things. I'm very happy here'. A member of staff told us, 'Last year we had a bit of a problem with equipment, hoists and things. The manager got hold of it straight away and I think the equipment situation is better now than it's ever been'.

Is the service safe?

We found that although the building was not purpose built, the general security of the premises and gardens was appropriate and adequate to ensure that people lived in a safe environment.

We saw that in general, people were relaxed, and appeared to enjoy the company of staff. This indicated to us that people felt safe with staff. A relative of someone who used the service said 'When you know that your relative is in good hands and as happy as they can be, then you can stop worrying about it. I have complete confidence in the manager and staff here'. One of the people we spoke with told us, 'This is my home and I am very happy and settled here. The manager and staff are friends to me and I know they're watching out for us'.

Risks were identified, and actions put in place to reduce the risk of harm to people and others who use the service. For example, staff were trained to support people safely if they needed assistance to mobilise. Appropriate checks and equipment were in place to reduce the risk of pressure sores for those identified at risk of developing them. People's needs were regularly assessed to ensure changes were identified promptly. This meant the service was aware of appropriate actions to take to maintain people's health and wellbeing. Staff were appropriately trained and supported to provide person centred care in a safe way.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS). This applies to services such as Maple House. The registered manager was aware of the appropriate actions to complete to assess the need to apply for DoLS, and we saw that applications were made in accordance with the local authority procedure.

Is the service effective?

The service sought feedback from people, their relatives and staff. Regular meetings and comments books provided opportunities for raising concerns, sharing information and refining procedures to improve effectiveness.

Care plans detailed people's care needs and wishes. There were reviews and audits in place to ensure changes in people's care needs were identified and responded to appropriately.

We found evidence of good systems to monitor care standards and performance. Staff performance was monitored and supported through supervision, appraisal and practical assessment. New staff attended a thorough induction programme that included formal training and shadowing of experienced care workers. Staff were encouraged to develop their skills through specialist training and relevant further education.

Is the service well led?

We noted the registered manager operated an 'open door' policy and was very active in the service. People, visitors and staff readily sought reassurance guidance and support from the manager. A relative told us 'The manager doesn't let the grass grow and is very formidable. They run a tight ship and deal with any problems quickly so that my relative doesn't get anxious'.

We saw that the registered manager played a leading role in all aspects of care provision and administration of the service. They told us, 'I'm convinced that we provide person centred care to a high standard. I get feedback on this from relatives all the time'.

11 June 2013

During a routine inspection

The majority of the people at Maple House were unable to tell us about their experiences in a meaningful way. To help us to understand the experiences people have we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool.

"SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us."

People were treated respectfully and their views were taken in to account by staff. People who could communicate with us in a meaningful way told us staff were caring. Relatives spoken with told us their family members "were always asked for their consent and were with dignity and respect".

Risks to people's health and welfare were assessed and care was planned and delivered according to people's needs. One relative told us 'I can't sing their praises enough; the finest place, a tight ship and they could not care for my relative any more than they do.'

People were encouraged and supported with their meals and they appeared to enjoy the meal time, one person said 'The food at the home is good.'

Some infection control practices at the home were unsatisfactory and would benefit from more stringent monitoring.

People's health and welfare needs were met by staff that had been properly vetted.

The quality of the service at the home was monitored frequently and effectively.

27 June 2012

During a routine inspection

Many of the people at Maple House Nursing Home had dementia and therefore not everyone was able to tell us about their experiences. To help us to

understand the experiences of people using the service we used our SOFI (Short Observational Framework for Inspection) tool.

The SOFI tool enabled us to spend time watching what was going on in the service and helped us to record how people spent their time, the type of

support they got and whether they had positive experiences. We spent a considerable amount of time observing care and found that on the whole people had positive experiences

People using the service who could express a view told us they liked living at the home. They said that the staff were good, and they were encouraged and supported to do things for themselves.

People said they were encouraged to express their views and make or participate in making decisions related to their care and treatment.

During our visit we spoke with five relatives who were visiting the home and following the visit we also spoke with five relatives on the telephone. All but three of the relatives told us they were happy with the care provided at the home. Three relatives told us they were not happy with the care at the home and that they had discussed this with the manager.

Many of the relatives informed us that they were consulted about their relative's care needs, as and when appropriate. They told us they felt able to raise any complaints and they were confident that there concerns would be responded to and dealt with quickly. Two of the relatives told us they were not happy with how their complaints were responded to.

One relative told us their relative had only been in the home a short time but that staff had built up a good rapport with them and had a good understanding of their needs.

People and their relatives told us they knew the manager well and that she was always around to speak with.