Mapleford Nursing home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff mostly treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We saw some nice interactions during our observations, where some staff were seen engaging and communicating positively with people. People were seen to be treated with kindness, and their privacy and dignity was respected with staff taking time supporting their individual needs.

Professionals were mostly positive that the staff treated partners from other organisation with kindness and respect. One said, “The staff are lovely, conversations do not feel rushed.” Another professional raised a concern in relation to the actions by staff during a previous visit to the service.

People told us they were happy living in the service. Relatives were positive about the care they received. They told us, “The staff are wonderful, they know [person] very well and they anticipate there needs well, she seems content” and, “The staff are caring and know the residents inside out, they know how to deal with them. It feels like a family-orientated place.”

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Relatives were positive about the care and individual choices provided to people. They told us, “The staff know the residents well they have choice in their everyday lives about times of getting up and going to bed, they have a choice of meals and how they spent their day” and, “[Person] is always well-presented. Staff always have time to listen to residents and talk with them at their level of understanding, and they don’t rush them. They are a happy team. I couldn’t wish for [person] to be anywhere better.”

People were supported with spiritual and religious needs as they wished. Information in relation to religious events at the service were on display. Staff told us, “Families visit whenever they want. Someone comes here, something to do with Catholic Church, they see a few people.”

Whilst some staff were able to communicate and engage well with people, not all demonstrated effective communication skills that people who used the service were able to understand. Staff told us, “Staff are kind to people. Communication between staff can be difficult, people don’t always understand what staff are saying and can get frustrated”, “People are treated well. There are some issues with language barriers. Residents become frustrated when they can’t understand what they are saying.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Care records included person centred and informative information about people’s individual needs. Up to date policy and guidance was available to support staff in ensuring people received their individual needs. The training matrix confirmed all staff delivering care to people had undertaken person centred care training that would ensure they had the skills to support them. Some bedrooms had all about me information cards in them. Senior staff told us they were in the process of ensuring all bedrooms had this information in them.

Relatives told us people were supported with choices and independence. They said, “[Person] wants to remain independent, they dress themself, the carers never force them to change”, “They treat them with love like they are their own family” and, “The staff are pleasant and easy to talk to and they take their time, no rush. They have a CD player, they can use it themself.”

Staff told us about supporting people and where to obtain the information about them. Comments included, “Information about people is on the electronic system the records are updated every month or if things change. We let the staff know of any changes” and, “I feel people get good care.”

A timetable of activities was on display and there was a sensory area to support activities, notice boards had photographs of activities taking place on display. However, whilst some people were seen engaging in activities, long periods were noted where people were not supported with meaningful activities. Some staff fedback that people were bored and there was not enough staff to undertake activities. We received mixed feedback about the activities provided to people. Comments included, “Everybody gets 1:1 with the activity worker. Once a month they get a singer in, and they have taken him and his friend to lunch at Wetherspoons. Once a week they have a pub afternoon and play darts. They have been out to see the Blackpool illuminations” and, “He plays dominos, he paints, they keep him active, he is always on the go.” However others told us, “He spends a lot of time in his room watching television” and, “When I visit at weekends, I notice that they sit for long periods with no interaction and the television on.”

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed some staff acted promptly to support people with their individual care needs but this was not always the case during our observations in all of the units. One person was seen talking about a health need but staff did not act on this at the time. Another person was seen requiring support from staff in relation to care activity, this was not done in a timely manner. We discussed this with the registered manager and senior team who told us how they provided care to this person safely and with dignity.

Relatives said staff support people’s needs as they required. One said, “They are very kind, smiley people, they are very thoughtful.” However 1 relative fedback that the staff did not have enough time to sit and chat with residents.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us management supported them and promoted their wellbeing. They said, “I am treated well as a staff member. We have employee of the month, we get a certificate” and, “I am happy I feel supported if needed, [registered manager] is ok she will sort problems” and, “I am happy here, I am not worried about anything. [Registered manager] is a good manager, any problems you can go to her and discuss them.”

Staff records confirmed supervision was taking place and a supervision programme was ongoing. Team meetings were being held regularly, a wide range of information and guidance was on display.