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
- People had individual risk assessments, trained staff and safe medicines procedures. The areas being used were clean, safe and maintained.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were regularly reviewed. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and supported people to make decisions wherever possible.
- Caring?
- Good
- People had good relationships with staff and were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported people to communicate and be involved in decisions about their lives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with relationships, community activities, communication needs and personal goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff felt supported by managers, with regular meetings, supervision and training. Inspectors noted that some staff guidance was not consistently written in an everyday and respectful way.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Helen House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some guidance needing more respectful wording.
This was an unannounced inspection on 06 June 2019. The inspector spoke with two people living there, one relative and four staff. They reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
The three people living in the home had individual support plans and familiar staff teams. Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices, communicate their wishes and take part in activities they enjoyed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The rating was maintained from the previous inspection, published in October 2016.
The main building was being redeveloped and was not occupied. Some aspects of the campus setting did not fully follow the principles of Registering the Right Support, but inspectors said this was partly offset by the individual approach and self-contained flats.
Personalised support
Support plans included people's preferences, communication needs, goals and ways to help when they became anxious. This gave staff detailed guidance about providing individual care.
“Each person had a personalised support plan that was meaningful to them and offered guidance for staff on how to best meet people's needs.” from the report
Choice and control
People were supported to make everyday decisions and take ownership of their own flats. Staff asked people before providing support, even when they knew them well.
“People were supported to make as many decisions as possible in their lives and support.” from the report
Stable staff teams
Each person had consistent one-to-one support from staff who knew them well. Inspectors found that this helped people benefit from familiar relationships and routines.
“Each of the three people had individualised one to one support provided by a consistent long-standing staff team that they were familiar with.” from the report
Community life
People went out regularly and took part in activities such as cinema visits, cycling, bowling, eating out and holidays. Staff also supported individual interests and longer-term goals.
“People had opportunities to maintain relationships and build new ones; they went out most days and were involved in everyday activities in their community” from the report
Campus setting
minorSome parts of the support were not fully in line with the principles of Registering the Right Support because the home was on a campus with other autism services. Inspectors said the individual approach, staff teams and accommodation reduced this concern.
“Some areas of people's support were not in line with the principles of Registering the Right Support.” from the report
Wording in staff guidance
minorSome guidance was not consistently written in an everyday and respectful style. Inspectors recommended reviewing how this information was recorded.
“We recommended that the registered manager considered how this information could be recorded in a more person-centred and everyday style.” from the report
- 01How is the main building redevelopment affecting the three occupied flats and people's daily lives?
- 02How do you make sure each person's risk assessment is kept up to date?
- 03What changes have you made to ensure staff guidance is written in an everyday and respectful way?
- 04Will my relative have a consistent one-to-one staff team, and how are staff introduced if someone is absent?
- 05How will my relative be supported to make choices, communicate and follow their personal interests?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, with care, medicines, staff and management records reviewed; nobody at the home was receiving end of life care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 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.
What inspectors found, October 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support with strong records and management.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 29 and 30 September 2016. Inspectors reviewed information held by the CQC, toured the home and annex, checked care and medicine records, and spoke with relatives and staff.
The home supported 15 people, although it was registered for up to 20. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe recruitment, safe medicine procedures and up-to-date care plans and risk assessments. People appeared happy and comfortable, and relatives were positive about the care.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the home met the expected standards in each area at that time.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found staffing levels appropriate for people's needs and saw that recruitment checks had been completed before staff started work.
“We found that the recruitment of staff was robust and thorough.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's communication, preferences, health needs and routines. People and their families were involved in creating and reviewing them.
“The care files that we saw were clear, understandable and person centred.” from the report
Respectful relationships
Staff were seen to treat people with care and patience, while supporting privacy, dignity, independence and contact with family and friends.
“We saw that staff interacted and supported people with care and patience.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose how to spend their time and could change plans. Staff supported activities at home, in the community and through day services.
“We saw people were engaging in activities of their choice.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used regular audits covering medicines, health and safety, incidents, accidents and falls. Records were up to date and actions were tracked.
“The home had systems in place to assess the quality of the service provided to the people who lived there.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure each person's care plan reflects changes in their health and communication needs?
- 02How do you support people who have limited verbal communication to express choices, pain or concerns?
- 03How often are medicines, accidents, incidents and falls audited, and what actions have followed recent audits?
- 04How will you support my relative to take part in activities and community opportunities that match their interests?
- 05How are relatives involved in care reviews and told about changes in their family member's care?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the main home and the annex; inspectors reviewed four people's written records and spoke with six relatives and staff. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 2016 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
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. 37 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.