Maple Court

We identified a breach of the legal regulations for safe care and treatment. People did not always have accurate care plans to guide safe practice. Medicines were not always properly and safely managed. On the first day of our assessment, parts of the environment and some of the equipment were not clean. Actions were taken before our second visit. However, people told us they felt safe. The staff worked with other professionals in supporting people’s health. The provider used a tool to help determine staffing levels and staffed in accordance with this. Staff were recruited safely. People’s mental capacity was assessed and the service applied for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) as required.

We assessed 1 quality statement in the effective key question and found areas of concern. The score for this area has been combined with the scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of this area indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. Some improvements were needed to elements of recording and practice in relation to supporting people with their nutritional and hydration needs. People were generally happy with the quality of the food.

People and their relatives gave generally positive feedback about how staff cared for them. Staff were noted to treat people with kindness.

We assessed 3 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with the scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. Relatives fed back their concerns about the limited communication they had with the service. People and their relatives were not involved in the creation of their care plans. There were limited opportunities for people to engage with activities or have stimulation. The provider had a complaints policy but there was limited evidence to support how this was driving improvement. People’s views on their end-of-life care was sought, but staff required training in this area.

We identified a breach of legal regulations in relation to governance. Quality assurance systems had not been effective in consistently identifying areas for improvement and taking actions to address these. Elements of documentation required improvement to ensure they contained consistent and up-to-date information. Meetings were held to share information and updates. There was a whistleblowing policy and staff knew how to speak up.