CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Maitland House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found medicines stock and administration records did not always match, so they could not be sure some people received medicines as prescribed. They also identified weaknesses in monitoring weight loss, covert medicines and some environmental risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed for their roles. People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and they received choices of nutritious food and support to access healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff encouraged independence and involved people in decisions about their care and daily choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff understood people's needs, histories and preferences. Activities were available, although more planning was needed to reduce isolation for people cared for in bed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open management culture, regular feedback and quality checks. However, the auditing system had not identified all the medicines and monitoring problems found during the inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Maitland House is rated Good overall, but safety Requires Improvement because medicines records and checks were not reliable.
Inspectors visited without notice on 8 January 2020. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for effective, caring, responsive and well-led care. People described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors found personalised care plans, trained staff, good food, activities and systems for listening to complaints and feedback.
Safety was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found medicines records and stock did not always match, and could not be sure some medicines had been given as prescribed. They also found gaps in weight-loss monitoring, covert medicines planning and some environmental safety checks. The provider took some immediate action, but inspectors recommended stronger monitoring.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors that staff were kind and considerate. Inspectors observed friendly, relaxed and sensitive interactions.
“People were treated with genuine care and we observed positive interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs and preferences. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“Personalised care plans had been developed, which provided the staff team with guidance about the needs of people and how these needs were to be met.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff had training, supervision and competency checks. Inspectors found they had the knowledge and skills needed for their roles.
“Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience they needed to carry out their roles effectively.” from the report
Food and drink
People had a choice of freshly prepared food, drinks and snacks. Staff provided kind and sensitive help when people needed support to eat and drink.
“People told us they enjoyed the food provided and were offered a choice of well presented, nutritious food.” from the report
Open management
The management team welcomed feedback and investigated incidents and complaints. Inspectors found staff were positive about the management and worked well as a team.
“There was an open and transparent culture within the management team demonstrated throughout the inspection.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicine stock did not match administration records for three people. There were also missing signatures and evidence that one topical medicine was recorded as given less often than prescribed.
“We could not be assured these people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Social isolation
needs fixingPlanning was limited for people cared for in bed. Inspectors recommended better planning and monitoring to provide social stimulation and reduce isolation.
“We found limited information in the planning to support people cared for in bed from the risk of isolation.” from the report
Environmental checks
needs fixingWardrobes had not been secured even though the home's risk assessment said they should be. The provider secured them on the day of the inspection. A kitchen door screen recommended by environmental health inspectors had also not yet been fitted.
“However, we found none of the wardrobes within the service had been secured.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to make sure medicines stock, administration records and actual doses always match?
- 02How do you now monitor people who are losing weight, and how quickly are referrals made for specialist advice?
- 03If someone receives covert medicines, what does their care plan say about each medicine and has a pharmacist checked the method?
- 04How will you provide regular social contact and activities for people who are cared for in bed?
- 05Have all environmental safety actions, including the kitchen door screen, now been completed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, while the previous Safe rating had been Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 22 June 2017. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, a visiting healthcare professional and managers. They observed care, including during lunch, and reviewed care records, staffing, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, staffing levels were sufficient and medicines were managed safely. Staff were trained and supported, and people could access healthcare when needed.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. Their care plans reflected their needs and preferences, and they were offered choices about food, activities and daily routines. The home had a complaints process and quality checks. It had also identified some areas for further improvement, including staff training.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in April 2015, and this inspection found that it remained Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse or other concerns. Risks were assessed and emergency plans were in place.
“People were kept safe from harm or potential abuse by staff who had been trained and knew how to recognise and report concerns.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw relaxed and positive interactions. Staff knew people's preferences, sought consent and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager was visible and approachable. The home used audits and feedback to check care and identify improvements.
“There were a range of checks in place to make sure the quality of the services people received were of a good standard.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What staff training has been identified for improvement, and how will you check that it has been completed?
- 02How do you decide each day's staffing levels based on the needs of the people living here?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific healthcare and medication needs?
- 04Which activities could you offer that match my relative's interests and abilities?
- 05How are relatives' feedback, complaints and suggestions recorded and acted on?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 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 Maitland House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.