Maple Manor

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. No new people had joined the service recently, as people had been living at Maple Manor for a long time. The service regularly checked and reviewed people’s needs to make sure their care plans were accurate and up-to-date. This meant people’s care plans contained a good level of detail and the information needed for staff to support people effectively. Records showed evidence of regular reviews, which were timestamped in the electronic care planning system. A staff member told us, “Every 3 months we look through them (the care plans) and see if anything needs updating.” People’s communication needs were assessed in detail, and clearly recorded.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff received specialist training, including in how to support autistic people and or people with a learning disability, which enabled them to provide evidence-based care. A staff member told us, “We have had sensory training – it’s useful because we always use this. We were going to a sensory room outside [of Maple Manor] but are now bringing this into the home. We have sensory lights, sensory toys, and during this time [people] are always very calm.” People had access to healthy food which met their needs and preferences. This included healthier versions of takeaway meals, and people’s preferred beverages. For example, we saw 1 person preferred to start each day with an iced coffee.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. We saw the service sought advice from a range of other teams, including psychiatry, the GP, the learning disability team, speech and language therapists (SaLT) and dentistry. This led to good outcomes for people. A professional who works with the service told us, “I have found that staff work well with professionals and have always been very responsive via email or over the phone. Any recommendations or advice that I have provided to [registered manager] and [team leader] have been followed and implemented for the individual.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People had active lifestyles, including walks in country parks, going to the gym, and trampolining. We received positive feedback from people’s relatives about how staff proactively considered activities to promote this, supporting a positive and healthy approach. A person’s relative told us, “[Staff] think of strategies to make [person’s] life more interesting and healthy, so [person] is doing gardening and not just visiting cafés.” We saw a vegetable patch in the garden, where some of the people living at Maple Manor were growing tomatoes. Where some people were involved in meal preparation, records showed people were supported to choose healthy foods. For example, 1 record showed, ‘[Person] peeled carrots, washed the spinach, sliced mushrooms and then sautéed them.’ Another record showed staff offering a person a range of different fruits each day and recording their choices.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The service monitored people’s weights to make sure they were healthy, and plotted this on a graph to track any changes over time. This meant they could make prompt referrals to healthcare professionals in the case of any unexpected weight loss or gain. On the day of the site visit 1 person had a GP appointment. The registered manager told us, “Everyone gets weighed once a month. [Person] has dropped [their] weight the last 3 months, so we are just getting the GP to check. [Person] is very active.”

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People were offered choice and control, and any actions tracked to check decisions made were reflective of the person’s expressed views. People’s care plans clearly set out their choices. For example, 1 record said, ‘My bedroom and personal space are very important to me. I do not like others in my bedroom other than staff when they are supporting me. I like routine and things being placed a certain way.’ Where people were not able to consent to all aspects of their own care and treatment, decision-specific mental capacity assessments had been completed. These records showed how staff involved people, giving them time to process information, and seeking the views of relatives in best interest decision making. A Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) log was in place, including the progress of any applications made to the local authority and any conditions imposed.