CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Maple Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found people at risk of harm, poor oversight and unsafe restraint practices.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection. Inspectors visited the home, observed people and staff, spoke with relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care records, medicines, training, recruitment, risks and quality checks.
The home was rated Inadequate for Safe and Well-led, and Requires Improvement for Effective. Inspectors found unauthorised physical restraint by untrained staff, incomplete records for medicines used during distress, gaps in fire safety planning, poor cleanliness and maintenance, and staff training that was not up to date.
Staff were described as caring, and people had access to healthcare and support with food and drink. However, inspectors found that provider oversight was not effective and that the home was not consistently following guidance for people with learning disabilities and autistic people.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in September 2018. The home is now in special measures, which means CQC will keep it under review and normally reinspect within six months to check for significant improvement.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's current needs and found that recruitment checks had been completed before staff were appointed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff available to support people safely and meet their current care and support needs.” from the report
Healthcare support
People could access health professionals, and staff worked with several services to support people's health. Hospital passports were also in place.
“People had access to health professionals when required.” from the report
Food and drink
People were supported with nutrition and hydration. Staff involved people in meals where they wished, and menus were discussed weekly.
“Service users and staff met weekly to discuss the menu and their preferences for the week.” from the report
Visitors
People could see family and receive visitors without restrictions.
“People were able to visit family and receive visitors without restrictions in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Unauthorised restraint
seriousUntrained staff used physical restraint on two occasions. The incidents were not reported to the safeguarding authority or CQC, so they were not fully investigated or shared.
“The provider failed to respond or follow up the use of unauthorised physical restraint by untrained staff which had occurred on two occasions” from the report
Fire and emergency risks
seriousInspectors found limited fire marshal cover, too few recorded fire drills and no personal emergency evacuation plans in the emergency grab box. The plans did not properly reflect people's needs, including night-time staffing.
“There were no Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP) held within the service's emergency grab box.” from the report
Poor cleanliness and maintenance
seriousSome bathrooms, furniture, carpets and kitchen areas were damaged, soiled or difficult to clean. Inspectors said this created an infection prevention and control risk.
“These issues all created an infection prevention and control risk to service users as the environment was poorly maintained and unclean.” from the report
Medicine records and checks
seriousA PRN medicine used during distress was given 12 times in one period, but only one behaviour record was completed. Some staff also assessed each other's medicine competence without the required trainer training.
“In total staff had administered this medicine on 12 occasions during this period. We found only 1 behaviour record was completed” from the report
Gaps in training
needs fixingNot all staff had current practical training in restraint, moving and handling, first aid or fire safety. Training on learning disabilities and autism was also incomplete or out of date for some staff.
“The provider failed to ensure staff had up to date training to provide safe care and support to people.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's checks did not identify the problems found by inspectors. Actions from meetings and requests for training were not consistently followed up.
“The providers governance arrangements were not reliable or effective.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to prevent unauthorised restraint, and which staff are now trained to use restraint?
- 02Have all staff completed current practical training in restraint, moving and handling, first aid and fire safety?
- 03Have personal emergency evacuation plans been completed, updated for night-time staffing and placed in the emergency grab box?
- 04What repairs and cleaning work has been completed in the bathrooms, kitchen and communal areas?
- 05How are medicines given in yoghurt now authorised, and how are PRN medicines and their effects recorded?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and the overall rating was calculated using the inspected ratings and previous ratings for the questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 December 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, June 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection prevention arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 29 April 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, testing, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and possible outbreaks safely. Staff supported people to keep in touch with family and stay active during lockdown.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide an overall rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Family visiting
The home had arrangements for two named family members to visit, based on individual risk assessments. This supported people to rebuild meaningful family relationships after lockdown.
“The service adhered to government guidance and arrangements were in place for the safe facilitation of visiting by two named family members.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had a plan for managing an outbreak. When a staff member tested positive, people isolated in their rooms and staffing was changed to reduce contact and movement.
“Contingency plans were in place to ensure effective management of an outbreak.” from the report
Testing and PPE
People and staff received regular testing, with consent sought each time. Staff had PPE training and the home had enough PPE available.
“Staff had received training on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and infection control practices and processes were in place to minimise the spread of infection.” from the report
Activities and wellbeing
Staff supported people to go for walks or car drives and provided activities at home during lockdown, including art, crafts and baking.
“Staff promoted people's wellbeing during lockdown by supporting them to go out for walks or car drives every day.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits by family members arranged now, and are individual risk assessments still used?
- 02What happens if someone declines a COVID-19 or other infection test, or becomes distressed by it?
- 03What is the current plan if a person or staff member tests positive for an infection?
- 04How much PPE is kept at the home, and how often are staff training and infection control checks updated?
- 05What activities and support are available now if people cannot go out?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 June 2021 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 Lodge
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- December 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 June 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.