Maple House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked at all quality statements for Responsive at this assessment. The service was responsive. This showed an improvement since the last inspection. The provider expressed commitment to ensuring people were at the centre of their care, and sought to work in partnership with people and those important to them to respond to any change in needs. People’s views about their care were welcomed, to use for feedback about the quality of the service. There was evidence of two-way interaction with people’s relatives, including through responding to complaints, queries or concerns. The service had also received some compliments. There was evidence of planning for the future.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care plans more fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs than at the last inspection, leading to more personalised care.

Staff could tell us about people living at Maple House, including any relevant medical history or diagnoses. There was a keyworker system in place, with keyworkers who knew people well involved in reviewing care plans.

At the last inspection, plans for redecoration and maintenance of the service were not tailored to everyone’s needs. At this assessment we saw there had been ongoing decoration of the service, and were informed further improvements were planned. This reflected a more person-centred approach, which showed people they were valued.

We received positive feedback staff actively promoted continuity of care, including access to other services. A relative told us about a person’s health condition, and said, “[Team leader] actively chased for a referral to the hospital. They care for [person] as though a member of extended family.”

Staff we spoke with were confident about working with other professionals and implementing recommendations to support joined-up care.

Partners told us people were supported to access healthcare in a co-ordinated way. A professional who works with the service told us, “We have a patient registered with our surgery who is a service user at Maple House care home. I have checked with their registered GP and the staff involved in annual health check appointments, and they have no concerns regarding the care of this patient.”

Effective systems were in place to facilitate integrated care, working in partnership with other agencies.

People could access information in a way which met their recorded communication needs. Face to face meetings had been planned with people’s relatives to ensure their input was also recorded in the care planning process. Relatives told us there was an improved working relationship with the provider, including newly introduced weekly reports which included information such as how people had spent their leisure time. This was subject to further development.

Staff could describe how people communicated with them and the information they were providing, so they could respond to this and respect their views and choices. A staff member said, “[Person] just likes relaxing in [their] room independently. If you go in, [person] might say ‘door door’ as [person] wants you to go out. [Person] likes to do colouring and puzzles sometimes, but sometimes [person] is just not up for it.”

Care plans set out people’s individual communication style and preferences. A person’s care plan said, “I can communicate verbally but it can be difficult to understand me if you do not know me well. Staff who know me well can understand what I am trying to communicate and relay if is necessary. I will sometimes reinforce what I am saying using simple sign language or by physically showing someone.”

People told us they were able to provide feedback, such as raising any issues or complaints. A relative told us, “I have no concerns about the staff and no complaints.”

Staff were confident there was an improved approach to seeking and acting on views about the service. A staff member told us, “Parents are more in the loop.”

There was a system in place to record any compliments, complaints or concerns. Records showed the provider had taken action to respond to people’s relatives and to seek outside input in response to issues raised where required.

We received feedback about how staff had advocated for people to ensure their health needs were met, to reduce the impact of barriers to care.

Staff could describe how they enabled people to access services within the wider health and social care system. The Nominated Individual told us they had sought a review for all people living at Maple House to confirm the placement could meet their needs, as well as working with external bodies such as the local authority safeguarding team, the epilepsy nurse, behavioural support team and SaLT.

Professionals who work with the service confirmed people had access to services, such as healthcare appointments.

Further work was required to demonstrate how the provider was proactively combatting discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support in a structured and considered way, to ensure equity in access. Please see the Caring and Well-led sections of our report.

We received feedback the service supported people to access experiences that would benefit their quality of life, such as holidays. A relative said, “[Person] is going on holiday, [person] is so excited, giving me the phone and saying, ‘book it, book it’.” Another relative said, “There is a holiday for 3 days being arranged.”

Staff expressed commitment to continually developing their approach to ensure people had access to positive experiences.

The provider told us in their Provider Information Return (PIR) that, ‘All staff are trained in subjects relating to human rights and their principles and training opportunities are offered as and when available.’ This needed to be continually monitored and evaluated to ensure consistently positive experiences and outcomes for people.

We received positive feedback about planning for the future. A person’s relative told us, “It is when something happens to me that [person] will be okay, and in a good place that is what matters. There is an end-of-life document raised should it be needed for [my person] and when something happens to me.”

We gave feedback to the provider that not all people’s records set out plans for enhanced emotional support should they experience a bereavement. The registered manager told us they would act on our feedback to put this in place. However, staff could describe how to support people sensitively with their emotional wellbeing.

Whilst all of the people living at Maple House were young adults and did not require palliative or end of life care, care plans still set out who to contact in case of serious illness as part of future planning.