CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Maun View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but serious shortfalls in staffing, medicines, risk management and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 and 24 November 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines information, staff files and management records.
People generally said they felt safe and that staff were kind and caring. The home was clean, safe and well maintained. Staff training, support and work with health professionals were rated Good. People were supported to make choices and maintain their independence.
However, call bells were not always answered promptly and staffing did not always provide enough supervision. Medicines were not always stored, checked or recorded safely. Some risks and care plans were not managed consistently. People were not always involved in care planning, and complaints were not always recorded or followed up. Quality checks had not found or fixed these problems.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective and Caring were rated Good. The home has had a Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating for the last four consecutive inspections.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed that people were treated with dignity and respect.
“People told us that staff were kind and caring. Our observations supported this.” from the report
Clean and maintained premises
The home was clean, safe and well maintained. Equipment and premises checks were taking place.
“The premises was safe and well maintained. We raised a couple of potential safety issues which were immediately resolved by the maintenance staff member.” from the report
Activities
Inspectors saw excellent interactions during activity sessions, and some people enjoyed activities that mattered to them.
“We observed excellent interactions between activity staff and people during activity sessions and activities staff were focussed and motivated to provide a range of activities for people.” from the report
Staffing and call bells
seriousThere were not always enough staff in the right areas to supervise people and meet their needs. Call bells were not always answered promptly, creating a risk that people would not receive timely care.
“Call bells were not always responded to promptly during our inspection and records confirmed that a significant number of call bells were not responded to promptly.” from the report
Risk management
seriousA care plan was not being followed for one person at risk of falls. Falls analysis had not considered whether staffing levels contributed to repeated unwitnessed falls.
“One person's care plan was not being followed on the first day of inspection putting them at a higher risk of falls.” from the report
Care planning
needs fixingThere was limited evidence that people had helped plan their care. Some records lacked information about what was important to people and their life history.
“There was limited documented evidence of people's involvement in care records. A range of care plans were in place but some care records were missing information in relation to what was important to people and their life history.” from the report
Quality checks
seriousAudits and checks had not found or corrected several problems before the inspection. This included concerns about staffing, medicines, risks, recruitment, care plans and call bells.
“A range of audits and checks were in place. However, they had not been effective in ensuring that all issues found during the inspection had been identified and acted upon prior to our inspection.” from the report
Complaints follow-up
needs fixingSome people said they had not received feedback about complaints. Inspectors could not find records of those complaints.
“Some people told us that they had not received feedback on complaints that they had made. We were not able to find records of their complaints during the inspection to resolve this.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing in areas where people need supervision, and what evidence shows that call bells are now answered promptly?
- 02How are medicines now checked, stored, dated and recorded, including controlled drugs and 'as required' medicines?
- 03How do you check that each person's risk assessment and care plan is being followed in practice?
- 04How are people and relatives now involved in writing and reviewing care plans?
- 05How are complaints recorded, answered and followed up if someone remains dissatisfied?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, covering the overall quality of the service and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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, May 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 25 April 2022. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control during the provider’s response to COVID-19 outbreaks. They also asked about staffing pressures.
The home had arrangements for safe visiting, including hand sanitising, face masks and temperature checks. Staff had infection control and COVID-19 training, used suitable protective equipment, and had enough supplies.
Inspectors found clear zoning for people who needed to self-isolate. The home supported people with activities and contact with loved ones during isolation. The building was clean, well ventilated and had up-to-date infection control policies.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for the five areas of care.
Safe visiting
The home had several measures to reduce infection risks for visitors and residents.
“At the entrance to the home there was clear guidance in place requesting staff and visitors to adhere to government guidance with respect to personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Trained staff and PPE
Staff had infection control and COVID-19 training and suitable protective equipment was available.
“Staff had received training on infection control and COVID- 19, and they understood the signs and symptoms that might indicate ill health which would require medical attention.” from the report
Support during isolation
The home used its layout to support self-isolation and helped people keep in touch with loved ones.
“During the outbreak staff provided additional support and activities in people's rooms at times when people were self-isolating.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found enhanced cleaning, good ventilation and infection control policies that had been updated.
“Enhanced cleaning practices were in place and the building looked clean and was well ventilated.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What staffing pressures is the home currently experiencing, and what measures are in place to reduce their effect on residents?
- 02How would the home support my relative if they needed to self-isolate in their room?
- 03How would my relative keep in contact with family during an infection outbreak or period of isolation?
- 04How often are the home’s infection prevention and control policies reviewed and updated?
- 05What infection control checks are carried out when visitors enter the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it did not provide a full service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 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 Maun View
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 March 2012.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.