Archived: Maple House

Updated 28 October 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 11 October 2017 and was announced. It was carried out by one inspector. The registered manager was given one-hour notice because the service is a care home for younger adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that members of the management team were available to assist us with the inspection.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information, we held about the service which included statutory notifications we had received in the last 12 months and information from other health professionals. A notification is information about important events which the registered provider is required to send to us by law.

During our inspection we observed how the staff interacted with people and how people were supported using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a tool developed by the University of Bradford’s School of Dementia Studies and used by inspectors to capture the experiences of people who use services who may not be able to express this for themselves. Only one person was able to share their experience, however, they were not willing to talk to us on the day of our visit. We also spoke with some relatives and health and social care professionals to get their views about the service.

On the day of our inspection we spoke with the deputy manager, the maintenance person, and two members of care staff. The registered manager was not available as they were attending a training course.

We looked at records, which included three people’s care records, three staff files, the medicine administration records (MAR) and training records.

We also looked at other information related to the running of and the quality of the service. This included health and safety records, staff duty rotas for the last four weeks and satisfaction surveys completed earlier this month.

Updated 28 October 2017

This inspection took place on 11 October 2017 and was announced. At our last inspection in May 2015, we found the provider was meeting the regulations, we inspected and the service was rated “Good”. At this inspection, we found that the service continued to be rated “Good”.

Maple House provides personal care and accommodation for up to eight adults with a learning disability. At the time of our visit, seven people were using the service.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff knew how to identify abuse and where they should report their concerns. People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm by having appropriate risk assessments in place.

The provider had effective recruitment procedures to make safe recruitment decisions when employing new staff. We saw staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs.

There was an on-going training programme in place for staff to ensure they were kept up to date and aware of current good practice. They received regular supervision to monitor their performance and development needs.

People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff promoted people’s independence and their privacy were respected. We found support plans were individualised and reflected each person’s needs and preferences.

People’s medicines were managed safely and people received appropriate healthcare support. People were supported to eat and drink enough to help keep them healthy.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Information about advocacy services was available to people who used the service.

There were systems were in place to monitor and check the quality of care provided to improve the service and take action when required. Complaints and concerns were dealt with appropriately.