CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Maple Tree Care Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and risk management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its earlier rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its earlier rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received individual support, meaningful activities and help to maintain relationships. However, future goals were not always identified and end-of-life care plans were not in place.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, approachable leadership and effective checks on care quality. Families and staff were involved and concerns were acted on.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Maple Tree Care Ltd was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care planning still to improve.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 28 November 2023. One inspector spoke with a resident, relatives, staff and the manager. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, a clean environment and good safeguarding arrangements. People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and keep in touch with family.
Some people's future goals and hopes had not been recorded. End-of-life care plans were also not in place, although nobody was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection. The manager said these areas would be addressed.
The inspection did not assess Effective or Caring. The report says the overall Good rating used earlier ratings for questions that were not inspected. The last rating was also Good, published on 9 December 2017.
Safe staffing
There were enough suitable staff, and the staff team knew the residents well. Recruitment checks were completed.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored safely and staff had regular training and competency checks.
“Staff received medicines training and assessments of competency in managing people's medicines which was assessed every 3 months.” from the report
Choice and community life
Residents were supported to make daily choices, follow their routines, access the community and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People were supported to access the wider community and participate in activities.” from the report
Open leadership
Families and staff described the manager as approachable. The home used feedback and audits to identify and act on improvements.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service.” from the report
Future goals not always recorded
needs fixingSystems existed to identify people's goals and outcomes, but inspectors found this was not always done. The manager said they would work with residents and staff to improve this.
“However in some cases we found that goals were not always being identified, therefore people had not always been supported to identify their future hopes and aspirations.” from the report
End-of-life plans
needs fixingNo one was receiving end-of-life care at the inspection, but end-of-life care plans were not in place. The manager said they were working with residents and families to start these plans.
“End of life care plans were not in place during the inspection” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's future hopes, goals and aspirations are recorded and reviewed?
- 02How will you develop an end-of-life care plan with my relative and our family if it becomes needed?
- 03What were the earlier ratings for Effective and Caring, which were not assessed in this inspection?
- 04How often are medicines competencies checked for staff caring for my relative?
- 05How do you use feedback from residents, families and staff to make improvements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and earlier ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 2024 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found personalised, kind care and improvements since the previous inspection, but noted some gaps in records and safeguards.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 September 2017. One inspector met the manager, directors, staff, a relative and the four people living at the home. The inspector observed care, meals, activities and medicines, and checked two people's care plans and records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them build confidence and independence. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and day-to-day risks were managed safely.
The home had been rated Requires improvement at the previous inspection, with two breaches about medicines and consent. Inspectors found those improvements had been made and found no repeated breach. They did, however, identify some areas needing stronger records and safeguards, which the home addressed immediately or agreed to review.
Personalised support
The home was organised around each person's needs, communication and preferences. Staff supported people to increase their confidence and independence.
“This was a highly individualised service where the needs of people using it were paramount.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were locked safely, staff were trained and checks matched stock with records. This was an improvement on the previous inspection.
“There were safe systems in place for the management of people's medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance, praise and practical help. People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff.
“Staff were kind and compassionate and valued people they were supporting.” from the report
Activities and independence
People had individual and group activities linked to their interests. Staff helped people take part in everyday tasks, outings and family contact.
“People had fulfilling lives and interacted well with staff who they clearly knew well and felt comfortable with them.” from the report
Safeguarding training
needs fixingStaff understood abuse and how to raise concerns, but safeguarding training had not been refreshed for three years. The manager said they were completing further training and refreshed knowledge through supervision.
“Staff received training to help them do this but training had not been refreshed for three years.” from the report
Financial safeguards
needs fixingInspectors found that some financial arrangements did not have enough independent checking or clear limits. The directors later confirmed that arrangements had been reviewed and changed.
“Another person's family brought in money for their relative but they did not have a bank account and there was no upper limit the service had agreed to hold to reduce risk of possible financial abuse.” from the report
Health information
needs fixingPeople's health information was not initially brought together in a health action plan that could support continuity during medical care or hospital stays. The manager began putting this information together during the inspection.
“People had a record of their health care needs but this had not been transferred in to a health action plan” from the report
Care records and reviews
minorCare plans were detailed but did not always show people's goals and achievements. Inspectors also found that some social care reviews had not taken place for several years.
“For example it was not clear from people's records if they had any aspirations or goals they would like to achieve as this had not been recorded.” from the report
Risk planning outside the home
needs fixingInspectors raised concern about a person being supported in a staff member's home because there was not a clear risk plan covering that setting and other people who might be present.
“We raised our concern about this because we could not be assured that a clear risk management plan had been put in place” from the report
- 01How do you now check and limit money held or managed for each person, and is there independent checking?
- 02When was staff safeguarding training last refreshed, and when is the next refresher due?
- 03Can you show us each person's current health action plan for use during medical appointments or a hospital stay?
- 04How are people's goals, achievements and regular care reviews recorded and shared with families?
- 05What risk assessment is used when a person is supported outside the home, including in another person's home?
This was an unannounced, one-day comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the inspector observed four people, spoke with one relative and reviewed two people's care records. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 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 Maple Tree Care Ltd
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 April 2013.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.