Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Maypole Grove

Goodpublished 14 December 2021, 4 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors looked specifically at falls management and found that risks were assessed and reviewed, and that action was taken after falls.
Effective?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Caring?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Responsive?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Well-led?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, July 2022

Inspected but not rated; inspectors found the home was managing falls safely, but this was not a full inspection.

This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 25 May 2022. One inspector reviewed information about falls management and spoke with the registered manager and clinical nurse manager.

Inspectors found that people's falls risks were assessed and reviewed. When falls happened, the home took appropriate action, examined what had happened and made changes to reduce future risks.

The inspection was prompted by a notification about a specific incident after which a person died. The inspection did not examine the circumstances of that incident. It focused only on associated concerns about falls management and found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern.

The home was not given a new overall rating. Its last rating was Good on 4 November 2021. This targeted inspection did not change that rating and did not assess the whole service.

What inspectors praised
  • Falls risks reviewed

    The home assessed and reviewed people's individual risks of falling.

    “We found people's risk of falls had been appropriately assessed and reviewed.” from the report
  • Action after falls

    The home took action after falls, investigated what happened and made changes to reduce the chance of further falls.

    “Where falls had occurred, we found the provider had taken appropriate action to keep people safe.” from the report
  • Falls monitoring system

    Inspectors found a system for identifying patterns in falls and making improvements.

    “We found the provider had a robust system for managing falls within the home to identify trends and implement improvements.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are each person's falls risks assessed and reviewed now?
  2. 02What action is taken after someone falls, and how is their safety checked afterwards?
  3. 03How do you analyse falls to identify trends and decide what changes are needed?
  4. 04How do you check that changes made after falls have reduced future risks?

This was a targeted inspection of falls management within the Safe question; it did not assess the whole Safe question or the other key questions, and the previous ratings carried over from 4 November 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2021

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with improvements since the last inspection.

Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 04 November 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.

They found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were given safely, and there were enough staff during the visit. People's health, dietary and support needs were being reviewed, and staff worked with health and social care professionals.

The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. This was a focused inspection, so Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit and earlier ratings were used.

What inspectors praised
  • Risks were managed

    Risk assessments were in place and updated. The home also checked equipment, fire safety and water safety.

    “Risks to people's health and wellbeing were managed safely and effectively.” from the report
  • Medicines were handled safely

    Staff had the required training and were assessed as competent. Nurses carried out regular medicines audits and acted on any shortfalls.

    “Staff had completed the necessary training and been assessed as competent to administer people's medicines safely.” from the report
  • Health needs were supported

    Care plans gave staff guidance about people's health needs. The home made referrals and worked with specialist services when needed.

    “The service worked in partnership with a number of specialist agencies to ensure people received the support they needed.” from the report
  • Management had improved

    Inspectors found that earlier improvements in governance and care plan audits had become established. The management team had remained consistent.

    “At this inspection, we found there had been embedded and sustained improvements, the management team had remained consistent and delivered a consistent approach to working practices.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Face coverings

    needs fixing

    Inspectors were only somewhat assured that PPE was being used safely because two staff were not wearing face coverings. The home introduced transparent face coverings after the inspection.

    “Two staff were seen not wearing their face coverings.” from the report
  • Agency staffing

    minor

    Agency staff were being used because of permanent vacancies. The home said it had recruited new staff and expected agency hours to reduce.

    “The service had recruited new staff and expected the number of agency hours would reduce.” from the report
  • Large care files

    minor

    Staff said the care files were difficult to manage because they were large and included information that could be archived. The provider had identified this but had not yet replaced the system.

    “Nursing and care staff had raised with us the size and complexity of the care files because they found them to be 'large and bulky' and contained information that could be archived.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How many agency staff are currently being used, and how are you maintaining consistency for residents?
  2. 02What arrangements are now in place for transparent face coverings and other PPE?
  3. 03What is the timetable for reducing the size of care files and removing information that can be archived?
  4. 04How much face-to-face training do staff receive compared with e-learning?

This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and earlier ratings were used. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Maypole Grove

4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. July 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Maypole Grove →

  2. December 2021Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Maypole Grove →

  3. October 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2020Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2018Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. April 2017

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 April 2017.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Birmingham

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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.

“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
Orkadi L., about Fernanda L.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
Brian G., about Chris M.
See live-in carers near BirminghamProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.