CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mapleton
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk assessments, safe medicines management and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's outcomes were consistently good. Consent and best-interest decisions were handled appropriately, staff training had improved, and people's food, drink and healthcare needs were supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective audits, clear management arrangements and a service improvement plan. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views, and action was taken in response.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support and clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was a focused inspection carried out on 16 and 27 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care and medicine records, staff files and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. People were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well.
The inspection checked whether the home had fixed problems found previously. Inspectors found improvements in consent, staff training, governance and notifications to CQC. The home was no longer in breach of regulations. Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this focused inspection, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Staffing and continuity
Inspectors found enough staff and a stable team who knew people well. Agency use had reduced and call bells were answered promptly.
“There were enough staff to support people safely and meet their needs.” from the report
Choice and consent
People were involved in decisions about their care. The home had improved how it handled best-interest decisions and legal authorisations.
“People were routinely involved in decisions about their care; staff sought people's consent and supported them to have choice and control.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered varied food and drinks, including support for specialist diets. Staff worked closely with health and social care professionals.
“People had a varied and balanced diet, and specialist diets were catered for.” from the report
Management and improvement
The home had regular audits, staff checks and an improvement plan. Inspectors found that earlier problems had been addressed.
“The provider now had an effective quality assurance programme to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you use the dependency tool to make sure staffing levels still match my relative's care and support needs?
- 02How will you keep me informed about any changes in my relative's health, eating, weight or care needs?
- 03How do you check that consent, best-interest decisions and any DoLS arrangements remain up to date?
- 04What actions are currently on the service improvement plan, and how can relatives see whether they have been completed?
- 05How would my relative's goals and progress be managed if they used the short-stay assessment unit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 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 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care and good medicines practice, but serious problems with consent and service management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 19 May 2022 and reviewed the Safe, Effective and Well-led areas. They spoke with people, families, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, training and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People were protected from abuse, medicines were administered safely, risks were recorded and infection control arrangements were suitable. Inspectors recommended using a dependency tool to check that staffing levels reflect people's needs, as some staff and families said the home could be very busy.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Two people were deprived of their liberty without the required legal applications. Training, induction, supervision and appraisal records were incomplete. There had also been no effective management or provider oversight since August 2021, and required notifications had not always been sent.
A new manager was appointed during the inspection and had already started changes, including staff meetings and new audits. The provider had reinstated three-monthly quality checks. However, inspectors said more time was needed to see whether these changes became established. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines
Medicines records were well completed, staff were trained and inspectors observed medicines being given in line with best practice.
“Peoples' medicines records were well completed and contained peoples' identifying information and a record of any allergies.” from the report
Risk and health support
People's health needs and risks were assessed. Staff worked with health professionals and supported people to access healthcare and move to suitable longer-term arrangements.
“Staff worked closely with other health professionals to ensure people received appropriate care” from the report
Food and mealtimes
People could choose from a range of meals. Staff knew people's likes and dislikes and supported people with modified diets in a dignified way.
“Catering staff had a good knowledge of peoples' likes and dislikes and people could choose from a variety of meals.” from the report
New management action
The new manager had introduced staff meetings, clearer expectations and a new quality assurance structure. Staff told inspectors the home felt calmer and that improvements were already visible.
“A robust quality assurance structure had been created.” from the report
People's legal rights
seriousTwo people were deprived of their liberty without the required legal authorisation. Another person was prevented from leaving alone despite being assessed as having capacity and not being subject to a DoLS application.
“Two people were being deprived of their liberty without the legal authorisation to do so.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider did not ensure required audits and quality checks were completed. There had been no effective manager or provider oversight since August 2021.
“This meant there had been no effective manager or provider oversight of the service since August 2021.” from the report
Missed notifications
seriousThe home did not always notify the CQC about approved DoLS applications and incidents as required by law.
“Notifications were not made in line with legal requirements.” from the report
Staff training and support
needs fixingMandatory training was incomplete and some training was overdue. Four staff had no induction records, some supervision meetings were overdue and very few staff had received appraisals.
“Overall, 78% of mandatory training had been completed however, 41% of these training courses were overdue for renewal.” from the report
Inconsistent staff experience
needs fixingStaff roles and expectations had not always been clear. Inspectors found that people could experience different outcomes depending on which staff were working.
“The lack of clear leadership and expectations meant different team leaders worked in different ways, and people could experience different outcomes depending on which staff were on duty.” from the report
- 01Have the two missing DoLS applications now been made and approved, and how do you check that nobody is restricted without legal authorisation?
- 02What evidence can you show that staff training, induction, supervision and appraisals are now up to date?
- 03How often are the new quality audits completed, who checks them, and what improvements have resulted?
- 04How do you make sure required CQC notifications are sent for DoLS approvals and incidents?
- 05How do you check staffing levels against people's changing care and support needs when the home is busy?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; the other key questions were not inspected and the report says their previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 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 Mapleton
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.