You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Maple Lodge. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

Maple Lodge is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Maple Lodge accommodates up to five people. At the time of our inspection there were five young people with learning disabilities and other complex needs living at the service. Maple Lodge is a detached bungalow in a cul-de-sac in Colchester which forms part of a group of similar properties owned by the same provider. Each property is a distinct service, though there are some shared communal facilities and joint social events.

This unannounced comprehensive inspection took place on the 19 and 23 July 2018.

At the last inspection in May 2017, the service was rated as requires improvement. We had concerns people were not always safe as staff did not have the necessary guidance about how to safeguard people from abuse and there were shortfalls in the storage and management of people's medicines. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not being met when making decisions for people who lacked capacity. We also found some staff did not treat people with respect. A lack of oversight by the manager meant these shortfalls had not been picked up and resolved as required.

At this inspection we found the provider had addressed our concerns and we rated the service as good in all areas.

There was a new registered manager in post who had arrived at the service at the end of 2017. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

The new registered manager was a passionate leader who inspired staff to share in the improvements at the service, which were ongoing and based on research into best practice. The culture of the service had become more person-centred and there was a focus on respect and openness. There were systems in place to check on the quality of the care, though there was room for improvement in the oversight the provider had of the service. There was limited impact during our inspection from this however due to the strength and quality of the registered manager.

The registered manager had focused on reducing risk at the service, in particular reducing the number of medicine errors. Every area of medicine administration had improved, from staff skills to guidance and quality checks. This demonstrated a commitment by the new manager to ensure people at the service received safe support.

There were improved systems when concerns had been raised that people were at risk of abuse. Investigations were open and the registered manager communicated well with outside organisations as necessary. Staff knew who to contact if they were concerned about people’s safety.

Risk was well managed in a personalised manner through effective assessment and planning. Measures to reduce the spread of infection were practical and effective. There were enough safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff felt well supported and valued. They were enabled by the registered manager to develop specialist skills and gain a better understanding of the needs of the people they supported. The staff team worked together and communicated well to provide consistent support. People’s physical and mental wellbeing was promoted and they received support to access health and social care professionals when required.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how a provider applies the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was safe.

Systems to safeguard people were more robust and open.

There had been improvements in the administration of medicines. Staff skills and quality checks had improved in this area.

There were enough staff to meet people�s needs.

Risk was well managed in a proportionate and person-centred way.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was effective.

The service acted in line with legislation when people did not have the capacity to make choices about their care. They helped people maximise their ability to make choices.

Staff had the skills required to meet the needs of people at the service, and were being supported to develop additional specialist skills and knowledge.

People received the necessary support to maintain good health and wellbeing and access professional support as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was caring.

There was a culture of respect throughout the service.

Staff knew people well and treated them with affection.

Staff promoted people�s right to make choices, communicating with them in a personalised way.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was responsive.

People lived full and varied lives, in line with their preferences.

Care plans helped promote person centred and were regularly reviewed to ensure they adapted when people�s needs and choices changed.

The manager used complaints to make the service better.

Staff were sensitive when introducing discussions about end of life.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was well led.

There was a new registered manager who was driving improvements.

There was an open culture where people and staff felt involved in the changes at the service.

There was a programme of audits and checks which resulted in an improved service. The provider had plans in place to enhance their oversight of the service.