CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Maple House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements in medicines management and records.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 July 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with people and staff, reviewed care records, medicines records, staffing and other documents, and received feedback from a relative and a social care professional.
The inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs and risks were assessed. Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns. People were supported with healthcare, food, activities and decisions about their lives.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. Care plans were detailed and personal to each person. Records were in good order, and checks and audits were used to find and address shortfalls.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all also rated Good. The report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection, when concerns had been identified about medicines management and records.
Medicines
Medicines were stored securely, administration records had no gaps, and regular audits and staff competency checks were carried out.
“Medicines were well managed; All medicines were stored securely in locked cabinets and clear records were kept of all medicine that had been administered.” from the report
Personalised care
Care was planned around each person's needs, preferences, communication and goals. Staff were observed adapting their support to individuals.
“There was a strong and clear person centred culture, with everything planned around the individual and centred on the person.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People appeared relaxed with staff, and inspectors found that staff treated people with kindness, respect and dignity.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and dignity.” from the report
Management checks
The home used regular audits and quality checks to identify shortfalls and record actions to address them.
“Audits and checks were in place. They were effective in identifying shortfalls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are medicines audits and staff competency checks kept up to date now?
- 02How will you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when there is sickness or an unexpected shortfall?
- 03How are my relative's communication needs, preferences and personal goals recorded and reviewed?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How are health appointments, changing health needs and any required referrals recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, using observations, discussions, records and feedback; the report says the previous inspection took place in July 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but medicines and records were not always safe or up to date.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 July 2016. One inspector observed care, checked records and spoke with people, staff, relatives and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported by staff who knew them well, treated them with kindness and helped them make choices, stay healthy and take part in activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Medicines were not always handled in line with guidance, and some records were difficult to read or contained old information. The previous inspection in November 2013 found no concerns.
The report says the provider breached two regulations. The provider was asked to send CQC a report explaining what it would do, and CQC said it would check the action was taken.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff listening to people, communicating in ways they understood and treating them with dignity.
“Staff spoke with people in a caring, dignified and compassionate way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s communication needs, preferences, routines, health needs and personal goals.
“Care plans contained information about people's wishes and preferences and detailed guidance on people's likes and dislikes around food, drinks, activities and situations.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing was adjusted around people’s activities and appointments. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Support with health
People were supported to attend appointments and had health action plans and hospital passports where needed.
“People's health was monitored and when it was necessary health care professionals were involved to make sure people were supported to remain as healthy as possible.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People could choose from activities at home and in the community, and were supported to keep in touch with relatives and friends.
“People were supported to take part in activities and staff supported people to undertake a choice of leisure activities within the service and in the community.” from the report
Medicines were not always managed safely
seriousOne person’s medicines were being transferred into another container by care workers. The home also did not follow best practice for dating medicines after opening and storing creams and ointments.
“People did not always receive them safely or in line with the organisations policy or best practice guidance as defined by The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, in their guide 'The handling of medicines in social care.'” from the report
Care records were not always reliable
seriousSome daily logs could not be read, making it difficult to confirm what care people had received. Some files also contained old information that could make it harder for new staff to follow current guidance.
“Records relating to the care and treatment of people were not always fit for purpose.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to stop medicines being transferred from their original containers?
- 02How are creams and ointments now dated and stored?
- 03How do managers check that daily care records are complete, readable and up to date?
- 04What action was included in the report sent to CQC after the two breaches?
- 05How are current care plans separated from old information so staff follow the right guidance?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, staffing, medicines, records, management and quality checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 2016 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 House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2017Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.