CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Maple Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; a focused inspection found safe, responsive and well-led care, but an incident allegation remained under CQC investigation.
Inspectors visited the home unannounced on 19 and 20 April 2023. One inspector spoke with people, a relative, staff and health professionals, and checked care plans, staff files, management records and medicines processes.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met the provider's dependency assessment, and care was personalised.
The inspection was prompted partly by a notification about an allegation of abuse. Inspectors did not examine the circumstances of that incident because it was still under investigation. They found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from that concern.
The overall rating remained Good. Well-led improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection because a registered manager was now in post. The Effective and Caring areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings carried over.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe with the staff supporting them. Staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns.
“People told us they felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, likes, dislikes and care needs. People were involved in planning and reviewing their care.
“People received personalised care that reflected their needs and preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Trained staff administered medicines safely. Health professionals regularly checked whether medicines remained suitable.
“Where people received support with their medicines this was carried out safely by trained staff who followed good administration processes.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had recruited and registered a manager since the previous inspection. This contributed to the well-led rating improving to Good.
“A new manager had been recruited and was registered with the CQC.” from the report
Good links with health professionals
Weekly meetings brought together several health professionals to support people's changing health and wellbeing needs.
“The service had very good partnership links with stakeholders including other health professionals.” from the report
Staffing concerns were raised
minorSome staff raised concerns about whether staffing numbers always met people's needs. Inspectors found the provider's dependency tool indicated staffing above its recommendation, and contingency plans were in place.
“Staff voiced their concerns around the number of staff on duty to safely meet people's needs all of the time.” from the report
Care records still being improved
minorRecords were being updated to show people's involvement in care planning and reviews more clearly.
“Records were being updated to capture people's input.” from the report
Incident allegation under investigation
needs fixingThe inspection was partly prompted by an allegation of abuse. Inspectors did not examine the incident, and the report says the CQC was still investigating whether regulatory action was needed.
“The incident is subject to further investigation by CQC as to whether any regulatory action should be taken.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the incident allegation that prompted this inspection, and has the CQC investigation finished?
- 02How do you check that staffing levels meet people's needs on every shift, including when staff raise concerns?
- 03How much are you now relying on agency staff, and how is ongoing recruitment changing this?
- 04How will my relative be involved in planning and reviewing their care, and how will this be recorded?
- 05How are my relative's medicines and any when-required medicines reviewed by health professionals?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2023 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, December 2022
Previous overall rating Good; this targeted inspection found enough staff, timely call-bell responses and good infection control, but some weekend administrative delays.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 25 November 2022. Inspectors looked at concerns about staffing, call bells, refreshments and infection prevention and control. They spoke with three people and five staff, observed care, and checked records.
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Call bells were within reach and answered in good time. People who could not use call bells had regular safety checks. Drinks were available and the home was clean, with staff using suitable protective equipment.
The home used agency staff to keep staffing levels safe and worked with the agency to provide familiar staff. Accidents and incidents were recorded, with action taken to reduce risks. The inspection found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concerns checked.
This was not a full inspection, so it did not change the previous overall rating of Good. The report says the service was inspected but not rated for Safe during this visit.
Staffing levels
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw people receiving help promptly. The home used a dependency tool and agency staff to support safe staffing.
“There was enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Call bells
Call bells were accessible and answered promptly. Staff completed regular checks for people who could not use a call bell.
“Call bells were within reach of people and answered in a timely manner.” from the report
Infection control
The home was clean and tidy. Staff were seen using appropriate protective equipment and changing it when needed.
“The home was clean and tidy throughout.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Accidents and incidents were recorded, and the manager reviewed patterns and took action where needed to reduce risks.
“Accidents and incidents were recorded, and action had been taken to mitigate risks.” from the report
Weekend administrative delays
minorThere were sometimes delays in answering the door or telephone at weekends because fewer administrative staff were present. The manager said they would look at improvements.
“During weekends there was less administrative staff in the building which sometimes led to a delay in answering the door or telephone.” from the report
- 01What has changed to prevent weekend delays in answering the door or telephone?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's current care and support needs?
- 03What regular safety checks are completed for people who cannot use their call bell?
- 04What nursing care, if any, is available now, given that the home was not providing nursing care at the inspection?
- 05How do you keep protective equipment and infection-control procedures up to date?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of concerns about staffing, call bells, refreshments and infection prevention and control; it did not assess the whole service or all parts of any key question, so the previous overall rating of Good remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 2022 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 Maple Court
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2022GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 November 2017.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.