- Independent mental health service
Maple House Rehabilitation Unit
Assessment report published 17 June 2026
Contents
Ratings - Long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults
Our view of the service
The date of the assessment was 21 to 22 April 2026, with additional online interviews completed on 29 April 2026.
Maple House Rehabilitation Unit is an independent long stay or rehabilitation mental health wards for working age adults. The service was made up of three wards, Maple ward which had 6 beds, Elm ward which had 10 beds, and Oak ward which had 6 beds, the service only admitted male patients. During our inspection we toured the environments of each ward, attended handover, attended a group psychology education session, reviewed prescription charts and care records, spoke with 8 patients, 4 carers and 9 staff members including the deputy manager who was covering for the registered manager during the inspection. We gave verbal feedback which we confirmed in a letter to the provider shortly after our inspection.
We previously inspected Maple House Rehabilitation Unit in January 2024. We rated safe, caring, responsive and well led as good, and effective as requires improvement. Our overall rating of the service was good. At this inspection we rated caring, responsive and well led as good, and effective and safe as requires improvement. Our overall rating of the service was requires improvement.
We found breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment. During the previous inspection it was identified that the service should ensure that physical health monitoring, such as National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), was recorded and followed up in accordance with national guidelines. During this inspection we found that there was no improvement and there was still a lack of consistency in the NEWS2 monitoring.
We also found breaches of the regulations in relation to person-centred care. In the records we reviewed the patient voice was not present in care planning or risk assessments, patients did not feel involved in setting goals and there was limited evidence of goal setting or discharge planning.
However, there was good engagement with activities, there were a lot of activities to support physical health and rehabilitation, as well as psychoeducation sessions. Staff had a good understanding of patients and engaged well with them.
The service reviewed serious incidents, highlighted learning, and implemented this effectively. Learning was also clearly shared with staff, and they used micro-learning in handover to reinforce and support learning. Ligature risk assessments were clear and comprehensive, which was an improvement from the previous inspection. Staff spoke positively about the service and culture, and there was a ‘Shout Out Friday’ to highlight achievements of staff and patients.
Mental Health Act
The service admitted patients under the Mental Health Act 1983. Staff received training on the Mental Health Act as part of their mandatory training, the current compliance rate was 85%.
The provider had relevant policies and procedures that reflected the most recent guidance, and staff could access administrative support and legal advice on implementing the Mental Health Act and its Code of Practice.
Staff explained to each patient their rights under the Mental Health Act and repeated this as necessary, this was recorded in a separate document overseen by the provider’s Mental Health Act administrator, who highlighted to staff when rights were due to be read. Staff ensured that patients were able to take Section 17 leave (permission for patients to leave hospital) when this had been granted. Patients confirmed they were able to take their Section 17 leave when they requested this. T2/T3 treatment forms (the legal authorisation for patients’ medical treatment under the Mental Health Act) were uploaded to the electronic prescribing system.
Quarterly audits were completed by reviewing a sample of files, and all files were reviewed as part of an annual audit.
Mental Capacity Act
Staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act and had a good understanding of the five principles. Staff training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was mandatory and the compliance rate was 88%.
For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis with regards to significant decisions, and staff recognised the importance of a person’s wishes, culture and history. Staff knew where to get advice from within the provider regarding the Mental Capacity Act, including Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with 8 patients and 4 carers during this inspection.
Patient feedback was mixed. Patients we spoke with did not feel informed or involved in any discharge planning and were not aware of their rehabilitation goals. They also told us staff were often busy and could not always support patients quickly, or their time on escorted leave was reduced. They also told us that they did not like the meals provided by the service, as they were concerned they were unhealthy and the options were limited.
Patients had access to range of ward activities they could get involved with, however, most of these sessions were quite physical, and patients told us their options were limited if they could not walk or exercise easily.
Patients were aware of how to access advocacy and knew how to raise a complaint. Patients gave examples of when they had met with managers to discuss their concerns, and minutes of the meetings were written up. However, patients did express frustration with the outcomes of the concerns they raised.
We observed staff engaging positively with patients, staff appeared knowledgeable about the patients in the service, and where they were up to in the rehabilitation process. Staff took the time to chat with people and checked on their wellbeing.
Carers we spoke with had a mixed experience of the service. Carers were able to attend their relatives’ multi-disciplinary meetings, and were able to request information from staff, and raise complaints. They told us that staff were kind and polite, but they were often busy and not able to support patients quickly, particularly on the weekends. Some carers also shared that their relatives were frustrated by the lack of garden access which was restricted to ‘movement breaks’. As there was only one garden space, each ward had a movement break where they could go into the outdoor space, to ensure equity between the three wards, these breaks were limited to once every 3 hours.