CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Maples
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. This included visiting, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not rated, although inspectors noted that the infection prevention and control policy included regular audits by the registered manager.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were keeping people safe.
The inspection took place on 29 October 2020. It was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice in visiting arrangements, social distancing, admissions, isolation, personal protective equipment, testing and cleaning. They were also assured that the infection control policy was up to date and regularly checked.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating for the service, and it does not provide new ratings for the other care areas.
Safe visiting
Visits were booked and held in a conservatory arranged for social distancing. Individual arrangements were made for people who could not use this space.
“Visiting was arranged via a booking system. Visits took place in the conservatory.” from the report
Safe admissions
New residents were supported to isolate in their rooms for the required period, with signs reminding staff about this.
“People were supported to isolate in their own room for the required period and there were clear signs on bedroom doors to remind staff of this.” from the report
PPE and distancing
Staff were seen wearing the correct PPE. Furniture and staff break arrangements were used to support social distancing.
“Staff were seen to be wearing correct personal protective equipment (PPE). Staff had a rota for their breaks to ensure they maintained distancing.” from the report
Infection control oversight
The home had an infection control policy tailored to its circumstances, with regular checks of practice by the registered manager.
“The registered manager had a clear Infection Prevention and Control policy in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and what options are available if a person cannot use the conservatory?
- 02How do you manage isolation when someone is newly admitted?
- 03How do you ensure staff use PPE correctly and maintain social distancing?
- 04How are residents and staff accessed for infection testing?
- 05How often is the infection prevention and control policy reviewed and practice audited?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 2020 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, March 2020
The Maples is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some medicine records and building improvements still being monitored.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 26 and 27 February 2020. One inspector spoke with five people, three visitors or relatives, six staff and three visiting professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well, and their choices, health needs and relationships were supported.
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, although agency staff were sometimes used and some people occasionally waited briefly for support. Medicine management was safe overall, but records still had some gaps. Some parts of the building looked tired, with gradual redecoration planned.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found consistently good outcomes and a service that was managed well. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection on 24 August 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, helpful and friendly. Inspectors saw staff reassuring people who were upset or distressed.
“People were treated with kindness and care.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences and supported their choices, independence, communication needs and cultural or religious wishes.
“People were supported by staff who knew them and what was important to them.” from the report
Good safety systems
Risks were assessed and managed, staff understood safeguarding, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Equipment and emergency arrangements were checked.
“Risks specific to people were considered and ways to reduce these identified.” from the report
Good leadership and improvement
People, families, staff and professionals were asked for their views. The manager used audits, meetings and feedback to make changes.
“The quality assurance framework assisted the provider and registered manager to identify areas for improvement, and action was taken.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were encouraged to socialise, maintain relationships and take part in activities matched to their abilities and interests.
“We saw people take part in a quiz, which staff had tailored to each person ability level.” from the report
Medicine recording gaps
needs fixingMedicine management was safe overall, but inspectors found some gaps in records showing that medicines had been given. Audits had identified this and the number of gaps was decreasing.
“Where improvements were needed, such as ensuring records were made when people were given their medicines, these were highlighted.” from the report
Some waiting for support
minorThere were enough staff overall, but some people said they sometimes waited a short while for support. Agency staff were also used at times.
“Some people told us that there were occasions they may have to wait a short while for their support.” from the report
Tired areas of the building
minorSome parts of the home needed updating. Plans were in place for gradual redecoration, including replacing carpets and painting.
“Some areas of the service were tired. There were plans in place for gradual redecoration, such as the replacement of carpets and painting.” from the report
- 01How do you check that every medicine dose is recorded at the time it is given?
- 02How often are agency staff used, and how do you provide continuity for residents when they are needed?
- 03Which redecoration and carpet replacement work has been completed since February 2020?
- 04How do you make sure people who sometimes wait for support receive help promptly?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved when care plans are reviewed or changed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the home and the care provided both considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2020 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 The Maples
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 2011.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.