CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Maples Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe staffing, recruitment, risk management, medicines, infection control and accident reporting. They found that people received medicines as prescribed and that records had no gaps.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward.
- 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
- Inspectors found strong governance systems, regular checks and a positive, person-centred culture. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2022
The Maples Residential Home was rated Good; the focused inspection found safe care and improved leadership, with no evidence that improvements were needed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 22 and 27 March 2022. Inspectors checked Safe and Well-led after concerns about whether people's medical needs were being responded to quickly enough.
Inspectors spoke with six people and nine staff, observed care, reviewed records and gathered information from professionals and other organisations. They found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable risk assessments, clean premises and systems for investigating accidents.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Well-led had improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
People were kept safe
Inspectors found that staff understood people's risks and responded to their needs in a timely way. The home had safeguarding, fire safety and risk management systems.
“People were cared for by staff in a way that kept them safe and protected them from avoidable harm.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
People received medicines as prescribed. Records, storage, stock checks and audits were all found to be in order.
“Medicines administration records (MARS) were correctly completed with no gaps.” from the report
Strong leadership checks
The interim manager and provider had oversight of the home's daily running. Regular checks identified issues and actions were taken.
“There were strong governance systems in place and the manager and provider had a good oversight of the daily running of the home.” from the report
Person-centred culture
Inspectors found that people were treated as individuals and involved in decisions about their care. Families and healthcare professionals were involved where appropriate.
“There was a strong, positive person-centred culture in the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are people's medical needs monitored and how quickly are concerns passed to healthcare professionals?
- 02How are the interim manager arrangements working while the registered manager is on extended leave?
- 03What changes have been made through the new electronic medication administration system?
- 04How are families involved in decisions about their relative's care and support?
- 05When will the Caring, Effective and Responsive areas next be fully reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but checks on quality were not always strong enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 December 2018. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files, complaints, accidents, rotas and audits.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines administration, suitable training, personalised care and kind staff. People were involved in decisions and supported with their health, diet, activities and relationships.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Quality checks did not always find problems, including missing guidance for some medicines, medicine stock not matching records and one care plan containing another person's information. The overall rating stayed Good, but the home made changes during the inspection and said it would strengthen its audits.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risk management and how to support people safely with moving and transfers.
“People using the service were safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw empathy, reassurance and positive interactions. Staff respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff who displayed empathy and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, history, communication needs and interests. People and relatives were involved in planning care.
“People received personalised care and support.” from the report
Good support with health
People received support with food, fluids and dietary needs, and referrals to health professionals were made promptly when needed.
“People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing.” from the report
Audits missed problems
needs fixingThe home's checks did not always identify concerns. Medicine stock did not match the records, so the correct stock level was unknown.
“The provider had a system in place to check the quality of the service. However, these had not always identified concerns.” from the report
Medicine guidance was missing
needs fixingSome medicines prescribed to be used when needed did not have written guidance explaining when and how staff should give them. The manager said this was put in place before the inspection ended.
“People did not have a protocol in place to guide staff on when and how to administer medicines that were prescribed on an 'as required' basis.” from the report
Care plan information error
needs fixingOne person's care plan contained information about another person. The manager said this was an administrative error and that immediate changes had been made.
“We also found the system in place to check people's care plans had not identified one person's care plan held information about another person.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to your medicine audits since inspectors found that stock levels did not match the records?
- 02How do you now check that medicines prescribed on an 'as required' basis have clear guidance for staff?
- 03What safeguards are in place to prevent one person's information being put into another person's care plan?
- 04What auditing skills training did management staff receive, and how do you check that it has improved the quality checks?
- 05What changes were made during the inspection, and what evidence shows that they have been sustained?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating remained Good, while Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 2019 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 Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.