You are here

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Reports


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Maple Tree Court on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Maple Tree Court, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 8 May 2019

During a routine inspection

Maple Tree Court is a residential Care Home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 64 people. The service provides care and support for older people some living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 55 people were living at the service. At our last inspection in May 2018 we rated the service as 'requires improvement' overall. This was due to concerns about peoples medicines. At this inspection we found the improvements had been made which meant we have now rated them as 'good' overall.

People’s experience of using this service:

People felt safe living at the service. Peoples risks were documented, and staff were knowledgeable about how to mitigate them. Staff knew to how protect people from abuse and what to do should they suspect it. People were cared for by suitable numbers of staff who had been recruited safely. People told us they received their medicines as prescribed.

People were cared for by staff who had the knowledge and skills to ensure they received effective care. Staff sought the advice of healthcare professionals when people’s health deteriorated. People had sufficient food and drink to meet their nutritional needs. Staff had the knowledge to ensure people’s rights were protected through applying the principles on the Mental Capacity Act.

People told us, and we saw staff were kind and compassionate in their approach with people, and caring relationships had developed. Staff understood the importance of protecting people’s privacy and dignity. Staff encouraged people to be independent as possible.

The care people received was responsive to their individual needs. People had the opportunity to partake in activities of their own choice. People and their relatives knew how to complain should they need to. The provider had a system in place which meant that people would be listened to when a complaint was raised.

People were very happy living in the service and would recommend it to other friends and family. Staff told us they were happy working in the service because they felt supported by managers. A positive culture had developed as a result of the good governance. The provider had an effective system which monitored the care people received and when problems were identified action was taken to ensure lessons were learnt.

Rating at last inspection: At the previous inspection we rated the service as Requires Improvement overall. (30.05.2018)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. At this inspection we found the service met the characteristics of Good in all areas.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme; if any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Inspection carried out on 19 April 2018

During a routine inspection

We completed an unannounced inspection at Maple Tree Court on 19 April 2018. At the last inspection 18 July 2017, we found breaches in regulations because people were not treated in a safe, effective and dignified way. We also found that the service was not well led. The service was rated as Inadequate overall and was placed into special measures. We asked the provider to take action to make improvements. At this inspection we found that there had been improvements in these areas. However, further improvements were still needed to ensure that people received a good standard of care.

This service has been in Special Measures. Services that are in Special Measures are kept under review and inspected again within six months. We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe. During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that improvements have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is now out of Special Measures.

Maple Tree Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Maple Tree Court accommodates up to 64 people across four separate units, each of which have separate adapted facilities. One unit is a residential unit supporting people who are able to be more independent. The other three units support people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 36 people using the service.

There was not a manager who was registered with us at the time of the inspection. The recently appointed manager was in the process of completing their registration with us. 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.

We found that improvements were needed to the way topical medicines were managed.

Improvements were needed to ensure risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and managed consistently.

The provider had systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of care. However, improvements were needed to ensure that the all the systems were effective in identifying issues to enable these to be rectified.

There were enough suitability recruited and skilled staff to provide support to people. Staff had received training to carry out their role effectively.

People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff understood and had followed the provider’s policy for recognising and reporting possible abuse.

People were protected from the risk of infection because the provider had policies and systems in place to control infection risks at the service.

People enjoyed the food provided and were supported with their nutritional needs. Action was taken to ensure people at high risk of malnutrition were supported effectively.

People’s past lives, cultural and diverse needs were assessed and considered to enable individualised care that met all aspects of people’s needs.

Systems were in place to ensure that people received the least restrictive care and treatment to keep them safe. Staff understood and followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Advice was sought from health and social care professionals when people were unwell, which was followed by staff.

There were systems in place to ensure people received consistent care from staff within the service and also from staff from external agencies.

The environment promoted people’s independence, safety and orientation.

People received support from staff that were kind and compassionate. People’s dignity was respected and their right to privacy upheld. Staff suppo

Inspection carried out on 18 July 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced inspection of this service on 18 July 2017. At our previous inspection, on 27 July 2017, we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’. At this inspection, we found that the service still required improvement and a number of Regulatory breaches were identified. You can see the action we have taken in response to these breaches at the back of our report.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service has therefore been placed into ‘Special measures’. Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 64 people. Care is delivered to people across four separate units. People who use the service may have a physical disability and/or mental health needs, such as dementia. At the time of our inspection we were informed that 50 people were using the service.

The home had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection, we found that the provider did not have effective systems in place to consistently assess, monitor and improve the quality of care. This meant that unsafe and unsuitable care was not always being identified and rectified by the registered manager or provider.

The safe staffing levels set by the provider were not maintained to ensure staff were available to keep people safe and meet people’s care needs.

Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were not consistently identified, managed and reviewed to promote their safety. Effective systems were not in place to protect people from the risks associated with infections.

Safety incidents were not always reported and responded to effectively, which meant the risk of further incidents was not always reduced.

The legal requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were not followed. This meant people were at risk of being restricted in an unlawful manner.

People were supported to access health and social care professionals. However, this was not always facilitated in a timely manner to promote people’s health, safety and wellbeing.

Staff received some training to help them support people. However, there were significant training g

Inspection carried out on 27 July 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected Maple Tree Court on 27 July 2016 and was unannounced. Maple Tree Court provides personal care for up to 64 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of this inspection 41 people used the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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.’

Staff understood how to support people to make decisions and when they were unable to do this, support was given; however, the provider did not consistently follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

There were systems in place to monitor quality of the service; however some of these were not always effective in identifying issues where required.

There were sufficient staff to people's needs. We saw that people's needs were responded to promptly. Staff had undergone pre-employment checks to ensure they were suitable to work with the people who used the service.

People's risks were assessed and managed to help keep them safe and we saw that care was delivered in line with agreed plans.

People felt safe and staff knew how to protect people from avoidable harm and abuse. Medicines were safely managed, stored and administered to ensure that people got their medicines as prescribed.

Staff were suitably trained to meet people's needs and were supported and supervised in order to effectively deliver care to people.

People knew how to complain and complaints were dealt with in line with the provider's procedure. People and their relatives were encouraged to give feedback on the care provided. The registered manager and provider responded to feedback and changes were made to improve the quality of the service provided.

People told us they enjoyed the food and drink and had enough to maintain a healthy diet. People had choices about their food and drinks, and were provided with support when it was required to ensure their nutritional needs were met.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals when they needed them. People told us that staff arranged access to healthcare professionals such as the GP promptly when required.

There was a homely atmosphere at the service and people felt the manager was approachable and supportive.