CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Maer Lane
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Maer Lane is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but safety records, behaviour support and management needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 November 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People were treated kindly and supported to communicate, make choices, stay healthy and take part in activities. Medicines were given on time, staffing levels were sufficient and recruitment checks had improved since the previous inspection.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe remained Requires Improvement and well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported privacy, dignity, communication and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and respect. People told us the staff were good to them.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care files included communication passports explaining how each person communicated and how staff should respond.
“Each care file had a detailed communication passport which supported new staff understand how they should communicate with people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities they enjoyed, joined community events and were supported to keep family relationships.
“People joined in activities in the local community and celebrated events throughout the year.” from the report
Medicines and recruitment
People received medicines on time from trained staff. Recruitment procedures had improved since the previous inspection.
“People received their medicine on time by staff who had been trained to administer medicine to people.” from the report
Behaviour support training
seriousStaff had not completed training on understanding and managing behaviour, including physical intervention. Inspectors said this had the potential to put people and staff at risk of harm.
“Staff had not completed courses in understanding and managing behaviour that included using any form of physical intervention.” from the report
Incomplete incident recording
needs fixingSome behaviour episodes were treated as routine events rather than recorded as incidents. This meant inspectors could not be sure that the correct response was being used.
“Not all behaviour episodes were being recorded as anything other than a routine event.” from the report
Care plan oversight
needs fixingA potential restraint had not been identified through the home's checks. Inspectors were also unsure whether all staff had enough knowledge to keep care plans aligned with best practice.
“It was unclear if all staff had the knowledge and experience to keep care plans in line with best practice.” from the report
- 01What training have staff now completed on positive behaviour support and physical intervention?
- 02How are behaviour episodes recorded, reviewed and used to improve people's care?
- 03How will you check that care plans reflect current best practice and each person's agreed support?
- 04Which health-related courses, including epilepsy, dysphagia and dementia training, have now been provided?
- 05How are psychotropic medicines reviewed and how does the home consider the STOMP project?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five key questions, including the care provided and the home's management. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2017
Maer Lane was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but recruitment checks were not always completed before staff started.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 April 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and care staff. They reviewed care records, recruitment files, medicines records, accident records and quality checks.
The home provided accommodation and personal care for up to nine people with a learning disability. Eight people were living there at the time. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, received personalised support and were helped with food, healthcare, activities and decision-making.
The main problem was staff recruitment. Three recently employed staff had started work under supervision before the required checks had been completed. This meant the safe rating was Requires Improvement. The other four areas were rated Good, so the overall rating was Good.
Kind and respectful care
Staff took time to understand people as individuals. Inspectors saw warm, friendly and respectful interactions.
“Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, and took the time to get to know them well as individuals.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, goals and preferences. Staff adjusted their support and communication to suit each person.
“People received personalised care that reflected their individual needs and requirements.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had choices about food and drink, and dietary risks were assessed with specialist advice where needed. Staff helped people manage health conditions and attend appointments.
“Staff played a positive role in helping people to maintain good health and access healthcare services as required.” from the report
Open management
Relatives generally found managers approachable, and staff felt supported. The provider used audits, feedback, complaints and incident reviews to improve the service.
“The provider had developed quality assurance systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service people received.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousThree new staff started work under supervision without the required enhanced DBS or DBS Adult First checks. This was the reason the safe rating was Requires Improvement.
“Three recently employed staff had been permitted to start work, under supervision, without an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check or a DBS Adult First check.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingInspectors found limited written information about mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions, although staff appeared to understand people's rights.
“There was limited information recorded in the care files we looked at about assessments of people's mental capacity and best-interests decision making.” from the report
Keeping relatives informed
needs fixingTwo relatives felt managers could involve them more proactively and give them more updates about their family member's care.
“Two of the relatives we spoke with felt there was scope for the management team to more proactive in involving them in, and keeping them updated about, their family members' care.” from the report
- 01Are enhanced DBS or DBS Adult First checks completed and recorded before every new member of staff starts work?
- 02How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded and kept up to date?
- 03How will you involve relatives more proactively and keep them updated about their family member's care?
- 04How do you check that care plans and risk assessments still reflect each person's current needs?
- 05How are medicines errors reviewed and staff competence reassessed when an incident happens?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five key questions and setting a rating for each. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Maer Lane
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 October 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.