Maple House Rehabilitation Unit

Updated 14 March 2024

Maple House Rehabilitation Centre is an independent hospital provided by Krinvest Limited. It was registered with CQC in 2016 and has a registered manager. It is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Assessment or medical treatment for persons detained under the Mental Health Act
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The hospital has up to 21 beds for men aged over 18 years. The service has 3 wards:

• Oak ward (6 beds) and Elm ward (9 beds) provide a high dependency rehabilitation service for men with mental health needs
• Maple ward (6 beds) provides a high dependency rehabilitation service for men with an acquired brain injury.

The service was last inspected in January 2018 when it was known as Ash House. It was rated as good overall, and good in all 5 key questions (safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led).

What people who use the service say

Patients were positive about most aspects of the service.

Patients were positive about staff and said there was always someone available to talk to. Patients said they felt staff were kind and caring. Patients were generally positive about their care and the activities available and told us they felt safe.

Patients were usually involved in identifying their goals and writing their care plans. Patients had copies of their care plans and leave documents. Patients attended their ward reviews and completed a feedback form beforehand, which made sure their views and requests were included.

Patients had access to physical healthcare and were positive about the weekly GP session. Some patients were unhappy about the effects of the medicines they were taking and had raised this with staff.

Patients told us the building was clean, and staff were responsive when furniture needed to be replaced or maintenance was carried out. Patients personalised their bedrooms. The building was being repainted and patients were able to choose their own bedroom colour if they wished.

Patients could raise concerns and give feedback in the monthly community meetings. A patient representative attended the monthly clinical governance meeting to give feedback from patients.

Patients knew how to make a complaint. Patients said they were aware of advocacy service, and knew how to access it.

Updated 14 March 2024

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service provided safe care. The wards had enough nurses and doctors, who received the necessary supervision. Staff assessed and managed risk well. They minimised the use of restrictive practices, managed medicines safely and followed good practice with respect to safeguarding.
• Staff developed holistic, recovery-oriented care plans informed by a comprehensive assessment. They provided a range of treatments suitable to the needs of the patients cared for in a mental health rehabilitation ward and in line with national guidance about best practice.
• The ward teams included or had access to the specialists required to meet the needs of patients on the wards, although there were some vacancies. Staff worked well together as a multidisciplinary team, and with providers and services outside the hospital.
• Staff understood and discharged their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and understood the individual needs of patients. They actively involved patients and families and carers in care decisions.
• Staff planned and managed discharge well and liaised with services that would provide aftercare. Discharge was rarely delayed for other than a clinical reason.
• The service worked to a recognised model of mental health rehabilitation. It was well led and the governance processes ensured that ward procedures ran smoothly.

However:

• Managers did not always ensure that staff had received the necessary appraisal and training.
• The furniture and fittings on the wards were not always well maintained and fit for purpose.
• The use of individual and blanket restrictions were not always robustly reviewed.

Updated 14 March 2024

See the summary above for details.