Maple Lodge

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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff consulted people and their family members when updating support plans. Records showed that support plans were reviewed regularly and updated in response to changes in individuals’ needs or wishes. For example, the staff had undertaken training to support one’s person changing needs by using sensory objects to support them. Where appropriate, staff informed relatives about visits from professionals to ensure transparency and involvement.

The notice boards at the entrance to the service identified who the home belonged to and their lives within it. The implementation of the key worker system with staff taking responsibility to work with and support individuals was working well. A staff member said, “I did some training with staff, and we have key worker meetings every other month. We go through everything, and everyone now has an activity timetable.”

Staff knew people well and supported inspectors during the visit by sharing in a respectful way individuals’ personalities and communication styles in ways that reflected their preferences. There was positive staff interaction with people which was encouraging and respectful. A professional told us, “All staff have demonstrated a high level of engagement and a genuine willingness to learn, with a strong emphasis on person-centred approaches.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Referrals were made appropriately when additional support was needed, ensuring timely access to healthcare services.

There was a consistent staff team at Maple Lodge, which helped people feel comfortable and secure in the presence of familiar staff. Staff understood the importance of community inclusion and actively sought opportunities for people to participate in local events and activities. A family member said, “Staff are trying to look for opportunities for [name of relative] to volunteer at an animal rescue centre, but they haven’t heard from any of the places yet if there’s a job.”

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

Staff understood how to support people using their individualised communication styles, including specific words, vocalisations, body language, and facial expressions. Visual prompts were used to help individuals make decisions and choices, and support plans recorded changes in vocalisations that could indicate shifts in mood or wellbeing.

People had communication passports in place, which provided clear guidance for staff and external professionals on how best to communicate with each person. Information was also presented in accessible formats, such as large print and easy-read pictorial guides, in line with the Accessible Information Standard, helping to support people’s understanding and engagement.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. They used all different forms of communication tools to ensure people had the best opportunity to be involved. Family members were informed of any changes to people’s care and support. A family member said, “The registered manager and I usually speak at least once a week, and I sometimes send a WhatsApp (digital message) so it’s all good”.

Records showed people’s choices and decisions were considered such as meal choices, activities and daily tasks. People had access to independent advocacy to represent their views and support their decision making. The board in the entrance to the service showed how to make comments, suggestions and complaints in easy words and pictures and photographs of who to complain to.

Family members were positive about the way the service involved them. Comments included,”I send an email, and they always respond, and get back one way or another” and, “Yes, they are easy to talk to, we have got their direct number” and “There was an annual review we had at the end of this August, but I think it’s more of a formality as it was all okay and everything‘s good.”

There was a system in place to gather feedback from relatives in the form of an annual questionnaires, compliments, complaints or concerns. Records showed the registered manager had taken action to respond to family members on any issues raised and had responded accordingly. A family member said, “I wouldn’t hold back if there was a concern and I would make a complaint. There isn’t anything at the moment.”

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Everyone who used the service received care, support and treatment they needed. Staff were proactive in meeting people’s health needs as they knew them well.

Communication and hospital passports were used to make health professionals aware of people’s personalities and individual needs to reduce the impact of barriers to their care. We saw people had advocates to ensure their mental and physical health needs were supported by other professionals.

People were supported to attend health appointments and discussions were held with them using their referred communication methods to discuss what may happen during these events to try to reduce stress and anxiety. We saw evidence people were referred to appropriate professionals when required. Staff worked closely with the GP, social workers, the epilepsy and behavioural support team to support people with their health and social care needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People had 1 to 1 support to assist them to live their lives as independently as possible. We saw evidence where the principles of ‘Right support, right care and right culture’ provided people with everyday opportunities. Staff were aware of their responsibility to ensure people with different backgrounds and beliefs had equity in the care they experienced.

Staff worked together with people to ensure they had equity of experience and outcomes. People’s daily notes showed they had participated in accessing community facilities, exploring new social and leisure opportunities, going on holidays, going to see relatives and being able to try new skills at home.

The registered manager was very proactive in reducing barriers to people’s involvement and health and safety by sourcing up to date information of relevance to them. This included pictorial information on testicular checks, undergoing medical interventions and fire evacuation safety. Staff meetings and training sessions focussed on reflective practice to look at barriers and better outcomes for people and how they could be improved. Staff told us they knew people well and had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion to better understand and respond to people’s needs.

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.

Where individuals, their family members or their representatives were comfortable having these discussions, end-of-life preferences were recorded in support plans. For example, one person’s plan included specific details about their wishes and arrangements, while others required further conversations to determine readiness to engage in this sensitive topic.

Whilst there was no one at the service receiving end of life care, the staff had been proactive in gaining professional support for people if they experienced loss or bereavement.