Archived: Maple Lodge (Stafford)

We found the following examples of good practice.

• The provider had a visiting procedure in place, which had been discussed with relatives. When visits were restricted other methods were used to ensure people continued to have contact with their loved ones such as, video calls, telephone calls and letters.

• Infection Control Champions had been implemented within the service to provide support to staff and ensure the correct guidance was being followed to keep people safe.

• The environment was well maintained and clean. Additional cleaning schedules had been implemented to lower the risk of cross transmission.

• Risk assessments had been completed to ensure people and staff in high risk groups were supported to remain safe.

• Staff were supported by the registered manager during periods of anxiety and the provider had a wellbeing helpline for staff to access if needed.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Maple Court is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to 35 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The care home accommodates up to 40 people in one adapted building across two floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; however, the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

Staff were trained to meet the needs of people and worked well with each other and with other organisations to provide effective care and support. People had access to healthcare as required and received their medicines on time and in a safe way.

People’s risks were assessed, and plans were put in place to guide staff to support people and alleviate the risk of harm occurring. Staff had the skills and knowledge to safeguard people from the risk of abuse and knew how to report concerns to the relevant and appropriate professionals. When things went wrong, the manger had systems in place to address the issues, and actions were taken to prevent the same incidences reoccurring.

Staff were kind and treated people with compassion. Staff knew people’s likes and dislikes and provided support in line with people’s choices. Care plans reflected what was important to people.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and felt assured that concerns would be addressed in a timely and efficient way.

People, their relatives and health care professionals had the opportunity to share their views about the service.

The quality and safety in the services was consistently monitored. The manager at the service was in the process of registering with the Care Quality Commission. The registered providers took an active role in the service, meeting people, staff and relatives. The manager had a clear vision for the development of the service.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (report published 18 March 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Maple Lodge provides support and care for up to 40 people, some of whom may be living with dementia. At the time of this inspection 39 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.

People who used the service were not always protected from the risk of abuse as not all staff were aware of the different types of abuse and how to deal with it.

People's individual levels of risks were assessed and reviewed but not always monitored to ensure people received care consistently.

There were enough suitably qualified staff available to meet and support people with their individual needs. Staff had been recruited using safe recruitment procedures and were supported with their training and development needs.

People's medicines were managed safely; staff were well trained and supported people with their medication in a safe, compassionate way.

The provider followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) where people lacked the capacity to make certain decisions about their care. People were offered choices and options regarding their daily lives and staff supported people with their choices.

People were supported to access external healthcare professionals and other agencies in order to ensure their healthcare needs were fully met. People were supported with their nutritional requirements and preferences.

People were supported by staff who were caring and compassionate. People and their representatives were involved in the planning and review of their care.

People knew how to complain and who they needed to complain to and the provider had a complaints policy available.

People told us the registered manager and the staff team were approachable friendly and supportive. Staff told us they worked well as a team.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.

At the time of our inspection 35 people lived at the home. We spoke with staff, visitors and people who used the service that were able to tell us about their experiences. Visitors told us they were generally satisfied with the service.

Some people were unable to speak with us either because of frailty or personal preference. We spent time in each of the two units to observe the activity and interactions between staff and people. We saw that staff were available to help and support people when assistance was needed.

We spoke with staff about the care and support they provided. They gave a detailed account of the specific individual needs of people. We looked at the care records for five people who used the service and found that the recorded information did not accurately correspond with what staff had told us. We spoke with the management about this and by the end of the inspection action had been taken.

We looked to see if people's medication was being managed properly. We found the service had systems in place to ensure medication was handled safely and securely.

The service had a complaints procedure which detailed how to deal with any comments and complaints made by people who used the service or their relatives.

On this occasion we visited both units within the service. Staff on those units told us that there were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of people. We observed people who used the service accessed all areas within the units. We saw staff in attendance, readily available to offer help and support when it was needed. People who used the service were offered support with their midday meal in a considerate and timely way.

We spoke with staff about the care and support they provided to people each day, they offered an explanation of people's individual needs. We looked at a selection of care records to check the care being given to people. These records corresponded with the information staff had given us.

Staff told us their understanding of safeguarding vulnerable people and confirmed they had received training in this. People who used the service told us they did not have any concerns but if they did they would speak with either the manager, senior staff or their family.

Staffing levels were variable in the units, there were occasions when staff were not in areas where people using the service were. This meant that on occasions people were left without adequate supervision and potentially in a vulnerable situation. People we spoke with told us that additional staff on duty would be beneficial.

We saw the service had an effective system for monitoring the quality of the service.