You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 2 February 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Maplin House is a residential care home providing personal care to eight people who have a learning disability, physical disability and/or living with dementia. The care home can accommodate up to 16 people in one adapted building.

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

The leadership, management and governance arrangements did not provide assurance the service was well-led. Quality assurance and governance arrangements were not reliable or effective in identifying shortfalls in the service and to meet regulatory requirements.

Information relating to people's individual risks were not always recorded or mitigated for the safety of people using the service. Risks relating to how Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) items were stored, and the service’s fire arrangements, did not provide enough assurance that people were safe. Suitable arrangements were not in place to ensure the safe management of medicines and this placed people at risk of harm.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 28 November 2018).

Why we inspected

We inspected the service because there had been a recent COVID-19 outbreak at Maplin House.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the ‘Safe’ key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider’s registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

If the provider has not made enough improvement within this timeframe. And there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall rating, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures. This will mean we will begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will usually lead to cancellation of their registration or to varying the conditions the 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.

Follow up

We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 3 October 2018

During a routine inspection

We inspected Maplin House on the 3 October 2018.

Maplin House is a residential care home for up to 16 older persons who have some degree of learning disability. They may also have a physical disability and/or dementia. There are currently 12 people using the service. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

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.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy

The service was safe. Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. There were systems in place to minimise the risk of infection and to learn lessons from accidents and incidents. People were cared for safely by staff who had been recruited and employed after appropriate checks had been completed. People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Medication was administered by staff who had received training to do so.

The service was effective. People were cared for and supported by staff who had received training to support people to meet their needs. The registered manager had a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People were supported to eat and drink enough as to ensure they maintained a balanced diet and referrals to other health professionals were made when required. The environment was well maintained and suitable for the needs of people.

The service was caring. Staff cared for people in an empathetic and kind manner. Staff had a good understanding of people’s preferences of care. Staff always worked hard to promote people’s independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.

The service was responsive. People and their relatives were involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. People were supported to follow their interests and participate in social activities. The registered manager responded to complaints received in a timely manner.

The service was well-led. The service had systems in place to monitor and provide good care and these were reviewed on a regular basis.

Inspection carried out on 8 March 2016

During a routine inspection

The Inspection took place on 8 and 9 March 2016 and was unannounced.

Maplin House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care without nursing for up to 16 older persons who have a mild degree of learning disability. They may also be living with a physical disability and/or dementia. There were eight people living in the service on both of the inspection visits.

There was a registered manager in post. 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 demonstrated a good knowledge of how to protect people from the risk of harm. They had been trained in safeguarding people and had access to guidance and information to support them with the process. Risks to people’s health and safety had been assessed and the service had up to date care plans and risk assessments in place to ensure people were cared for safely. Staff had been safely recruited in sufficient numbers to meet people’s assessed needs. People received their medication as prescribed and there were safe systems in place for receiving, administering and disposing of medicines.

Staff had been well trained and supported to carry out their role. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People had enough to eat and drink to meet their individual needs and preferences. People’s care needs had been assessed and their care plans provided staff with the information needed to meet people’s needs and to care for them safely. People’s healthcare needs were monitored and staff sought advice and guidance from healthcare professionals when needed.

Staff knew the people they cared for well and they were kind, caring and respectful. They ensured that people’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times. People expressed their views and opinions and they participated in activities of their choosing. People were able to receive their visitors at any time and their families and friends were made to feel welcome. People had access to advocacy services when needed. An advocate supports a person to have an independent voice and enables them to express their views when they are unable to do so for themselves.

People’s care and support was provided in a way that ensured their safety and welfare. They received a full assessment of their needs before using the service and care and support plans had been developed using the assessment process. People were confident that their concerns or complaints would be listened to and dealt with appropriately.

There was an effective system in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and to drive improvements.

Inspection carried out on 17 December 2013

During a routine inspection

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect. They had been fully involved in their care and treatment. We found that a full pre-admission assessment was carried out that took into account people�s cultural, religious and individual needs. Care plans had been developed from the information in the assessment. They were person centred and reflected people�s individuality, choice and preferences. People told us that they were very happy with the care and support that they received. We found that people had a choice of food and drink that met their diverse needs. The menus and nutrition records showed that people had received a healthy balanced diet.

We found that people lived in a comfortable homely environment. People told us that they were happy with their rooms. One person said, �I have lots of my own things in my room and that is how I like it.� Another person said, �I can have what I like in my room and that is good because it is my room.� Another person said, �I feel safe living here.�

People received their care and treatment from staff that had been properly trained, supported and supervised. They received safe quality care because the provider had an effective quality assurance system in place. People received safe, effective and compassionate care from a well led service that responds quickly to their changing needs.

Inspection carried out on 4 January 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our last inspection visit in September 2012 we found Maplin House to be non-compliant with two of the three outcome areas about the suitability of staffing. We found that a staff member�s permit to work in the United Kingdom had expired in July 2011. We also found that a man had been employed to drive the home�s mini-bus but had no recruitment file. We looked at staff�s supervision documents and found that it had not taken place as often as stated in staff�s supervision contracts.

During our visit in January 2013 we looked at a sample of recruitment and supervision records and found that there was an improvement in both recruitment and supervision. Staff told us that they felt well supported and people either told us or indicated that they were happy. Some of the people who live in Maplin House had limited communication but others were quite clear about how they felt. One person said, �I am very happy, the staff are lovely.�