CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Maypole Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but fluid records and some recruitment checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 9 and 14 November 2022. Inspectors reviewed seven care records and several medicines records, spoke with staff and managers, reviewed documents, and later spoke with four relatives.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, the premises were clean, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Care plans were personal, people had choices, and activities had improved.
Inspectors were concerned that some fluid records were incomplete and that water was not always within people's reach. Some recruitment records also lacked required information, although the provider was changing responsibility for these checks. The home had recently appointed a manager after a period of management changes.
The Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led ratings were Good. Responsive improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The inspection was focused, so the overall rating also used ratings from the previous inspection for any question not checked.
Safe medicines and incident learning
Medicines were given as prescribed, stored safely and checked through regular audits. Accidents, incidents and near misses were investigated and learning was shared.
“The provider had an embedded process for reporting accidents, incidents and near misses. These were investigated and learning to minimise future incidents shared with the team.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's wishes and needs. People could choose where to spend time, whether to join activities and how they received information.
“Care records reflected a personalised approach and care plans had detail that reflected peoples wishes as well as their needs.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
Activities had improved with new activities staff. People who were cared for in bed could receive one-to-one sessions based on their interests.
“One to one sessions were provided to people who were cared for in bed and were designed around each person’s interests.” from the report
Recent leadership improvements
The new manager had helped create a more settled service. Staff, people and relatives reported improvements and the home had a broad auditing process.
“The new manager in post had already made improvements to staffing levels and the running of the service.” from the report
Fluid records and access to drinks
needs fixingInspectors found that some fluid records were incomplete, including records for people with fluid restrictions or specific fluid targets. Water was not always within people's reach, although people told inspectors they had enough to drink and there had been few urinary tract infections.
“We looked at fluid records. These had not always been fully completed. For example, for a person who should have restricted fluids, amounts had not been recorded or totalled, for another person who should have 1 to 2 litres of fluids had no records at all.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome required or accurate pre-employment records were missing. The provider was transferring responsibility for these checks from head office to the home and had introduced new forms.
“Recruitment records held a range of required pre-employment checks and we noted some missing or incorrect records.” from the report
Management changes
minorThere had been several management changes, and the manager had been in post for only two weeks at the inspection. Inspectors said earlier temporary management arrangements had not been effective, although the new manager had already made improvements.
“There had been multiple changes in the management team at Maypole and when we inspected, a manager had been in post for only 2 weeks.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure drinks are within each person's reach?
- 02How are fluid intake records completed and checked for people with fluid restrictions or specific daily targets?
- 03Have all missing or incorrect recruitment checks and employment records now been completed?
- 04How is the recently appointed manager progressing with the planned improvements?
- 05How do people receive activity schedules, especially those who prefer individual or room-based activities?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not inspected separately, and the overall rating used previous ratings for any question not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 January 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, August 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, but people's daily activities and preferred care were not always provided.
Inspectors visited without notice on 30 June 2021. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe, medicines were given correctly, infection control was good, and people generally felt safe. Care plans were detailed and complaints were investigated properly.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement, as it had been at the previous inspection. People did not always receive care at their preferred time or in their preferred way, and there were too few activities. The manager had increased staffing, recruited an activities coordinator and set out plans for improvement.
Medicines
Inspectors found robust systems for ordering, storing and giving medicines. Staff were trained and their competence was checked regularly.
“We reviewed several MARs, which showed that people received the right medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Safety and infection control
People generally felt safe, and inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were effective, including the use of protective equipment and support for visits.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Care planning
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff detailed guidance about people's needs, choices and communication.
“People had person-centred care plans, detailing their wishes and preferences.” from the report
Management oversight
The home used regular audits, meetings and an improvement plan to identify problems and track changes.
“The service had a comprehensive auditing system to continuously review and improve the quality of people's care and the safety of the service.” from the report
Handling complaints
Complaints were investigated in detail, with action and learning shared with staff where needed.
“The management team investigated incidents and complaints thoroughly.” from the report
Fire records and safety
seriousThe register of people in the fire book was ten days out of date after the home's occupancy changed. This could create a risk during an evacuation, and the fire service required further improvements.
“The register of people in the service's fire book had last been updated ten days prior to our inspection.” from the report
Personal care was not always timely
needs fixingPeople could not always have showers or receive personal care when they wanted. One person said they had waited 12 days for a shower, and inspectors saw examples of planned care not being delivered.
“We saw examples where people's care had not been delivered as planned.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingPeople said there was not enough to do and that activities were not happening regularly. The manager had recognised this and had recruited an activities coordinator who was due to start.
“People told us they did not have enough opportunities to engage in activities.” from the report
- 01How often are the fire register and other evacuation records now checked and updated?
- 02What staffing changes have been made, and are people now receiving showers and personal care at their preferred times?
- 03How often are activities now offered, and what happened after the activities coordinator started?
- 04How are residents and relatives involved in creating and reviewing care plans?
- 05How will relatives receive routine updates about day-to-day care, not only information about incidents?
This inspection rated Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not given ratings in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 August 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 Maypole Care Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.