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.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on people's needs and choices. Staff were trained and supervised, people received support with health appointments and nutrition, and the home worked within the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not covered by this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective quality checks, responsive management and good communication with families and health and social care professionals. People and staff were involved in how the home was run.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care, with decoration still needed and one restriction needing review.
The inspection took place on 20 July 2022 and was carried out by one inspector. Inspectors spoke with the people living there, staff, the manager, a family member and health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and incident records.
The home was rated Good overall and was also rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff understood their needs, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. Care was personalised and people were supported to make choices, take part in activities and access the community.
The building was in urgent need of decoration, although work was planned for September 2022. One person's agreed smoking restriction had not recently been reviewed, but this was reviewed after the inspection. No breaches of regulations or enforcement action were reported.
This was a focused inspection. Inspectors looked only at Safe, Effective and Well-led, so Caring and Responsive were not reassessed at this visit. The last inspection, published in November 2019, had also rated the service Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they liked living at the home and felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and appropriate referrals had been made when concerns arose.
“People told us they liked living at the service and they felt safe there.” from the report
Personalised choices
Care records reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. People were supported to be independent, choose activities and take part in community life.
“The service provides care that is personalised and maximised people's choices.” from the report
Sufficient staffing
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff could cover rota gaps using familiar workers from the provider's other services.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and provide flexible, responsive care.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
Medicines were checked and staff had training and competency checks. The home was clean and inspectors found effective infection control arrangements.
“Medicines were managed safely, and there were infection control processes in place.” from the report
Supportive leadership
Quality checks were completed and actions were followed through. Families and professionals described the management as responsive and caring.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, and to support the staff to provide good quality care.” from the report
Decoration needed
minorInspectors said the building was in urgent need of decoration. Work was planned for September 2022 while people were away on holiday.
“The building was in urgent need of decoration. This was planned for September 2022 when the people at the service were on holiday.” from the report
Smoking restriction review
needs fixingOne person's agreed smoking restriction had not recently been reviewed. The home completed a review after the inspection.
“One person had restrictions on their smoking, that had been agreed with them. The agreement had not recently been reviewed, so following the inspection a review took place.” from the report
- 01Was the planned decoration completed in September 2022, and are there any remaining building works?
- 02How are restrictions on smoking agreed, recorded and reviewed?
- 03How will you keep us informed if our relative's health needs, risks or care arrangements change?
- 04What opportunities would our relative have to choose activities, visit family and take part in the local community?
- 05How are families involved in resident meetings, care reviews and decisions about the service?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not reassessed and the previous ratings for those areas carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Maple House is rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some issues around food supplies, fire doors and records.
This was a planned inspection on 11 November 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff and managers, observed daily care and lunch, checked the building, and reviewed care, medicine, staffing, incident and complaints records. Feedback was also gathered from a family member and health and social care professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff were kind, care was tailored to individual needs, and people were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in community activities.
Inspectors identified some issues during the visit. Fire doors were propped open, fresh food supplies had run low, and some mental capacity and health information was not recorded clearly enough. The service said it had addressed or would address these points while the report was being written.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly. Families and health professionals also gave positive feedback about the care.
“People told us they liked living at the service and they felt safe there.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, do things for themselves and take positive risks safely.
“People were very well supported to take positive risks and the service worked creatively to support people” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to take part in activities such as swimming, meals out, shopping, trips to the park and holidays.
“People were supported and encouraged to engage in activities within the community.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's needs, routines, preferences and interests. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“People's care records covered a broad range of needs including personal care, mental health, safety and health needs.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with families and health and social care professionals to support people's health and wellbeing.
“Yes I have been kept fully informed and up to date with my client's health and needs.” from the report
Fire doors
seriousInspectors found fire doors propped open in the living room and kitchen. The registered manager said this practice would be checked.
“We noted that fire doors were propped open in the living room and kitchen.” from the report
Fresh food supplies
needs fixingThe fridge was sparsely stocked and some ingredients for the planned lunch were unavailable. The manager said fresh food stocks would not be allowed to run so low.
“We saw that not all people got the lunch that had been pictorially set out on the wall as some of the ingredients were not available.” from the report
Health information
needs fixingInformation about one person's digestive health condition did not initially give staff enough detail about signs and symptoms to watch for. This was added before the report was completed.
“But there was not detailed specific information available for staff about this condition and the signs and symptoms to look out for.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThe service did not always record decision-making clearly enough to show that best-interest meetings had taken place. The service said it had addressed this by the time the report was written.
“had not always recorded this in a way that showed 'best interest' meetings had taken place.” from the report
Accessible complaints information
minorThe complaints process was not initially easy for everyone to understand. An accessible copy was sent to inspectors after the visit and was due to be discussed at residents' meetings.
“There was not an easily understood, accessible process for all the people at the service.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure fire doors are kept closed and checked regularly?
- 02How do you ensure there is enough fresh food for the planned meals and suitable choices every day?
- 03How are best-interest decisions and restrictions recorded and reviewed now?
- 04What detailed information is available to staff about each person's health conditions and warning signs?
- 05How can people living here make a complaint in a way they can understand?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home, including the premises and care provided, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 December 2019 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
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Enfield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.