Archived: Maple Lodge Care Home

Updated 13 May 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 11 March 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and a specialist professional advisor who specialised in providing nursing services to older people.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service, such as notifications we had received from the registered manager. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to the Commission by law. We planned the inspection using this information. We also contacted the local authority contracting team to ask for their views on the service and to ask if they had any concerns. The registered manager had also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR).The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our inspection we carried out observations of staff interacting with people and completed a structured observation using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who were unable to talk with us. We spoke with seven people who lived at the service and eight relatives.

During the inspection visit we reviewed eight people’s care records, three staff recruitment files, records required for the management of the home such as audits, minutes from meetings, satisfaction surveys, and medication storage and administration records. We also spoke with eight members of staff, including nurses, senior care workers, care assistants, the activities organiser, the chef, the deputy manager and the operations manager. The registered manager was not present during the inspection as they were taking annual leave.

Updated 13 May 2016

This inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 11 March 2016. Maple Lodge is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, treatment of disease disorder or injury and diagnostic and screening for up to 60 people. There was a specialist unit for people living with dementia. There were 40 people living at Maple Lodge on the day we inspected, 16 of whom required nursing care.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Maple Lodge provided good care and support for the people that lived there. Staff were confident about how to protect people from harm and what they would do if they had any safeguarding concerns. There were good systems in place to make sure that people were supported to take medicines safely and as prescribed. Risks to people had been assessed and plans put in place to keep risks to a minimum.

There were enough staff on duty to make sure people's needs were met. Staff recruitment processes included carrying out appropriate checks to reduce the risk of employing unsuitable people. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and that there was good team work. Staff were supported through training and team meetings to help them carry out their roles effectively.

People received their medicines at the times they needed them. The systems in place meant medicines were administered and recorded properly and this was audited regularly by the service and the dispensing pharmacist. Staff were assessed for competency prior to administering medication and this was re-assessed regularly.

Staff received appropriate training, supervision and support. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure that people’s rights were protected where they were unable to make decisions.

People had their nutritional needs met. There was a variety of choices available on the menus, snacks were freely available throughout the home and people were supported to have sufficient food and drinks to meet their dietary needs. People who required special diets were catered for.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and all the people we spoke with told us that they felt that they could talk with any of the staff if they had a concern or were worried about anything.

People told us that they were well cared for and happy with the support they received. We found staff approached people in a caring manner and people’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People looked well cared for and appeared at ease with staff. The home had a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere.

People were involved in the decisions about their care and their care plans provided information on how to assist and support them in meeting their needs. People's needs were regularly reviewed and, where necessary, appropriate changes were made to the support people received. People were supported to maintain their health and had access to health services if needed.

The registered provider actively sought the views of people using and visiting the service. They were asked to complete an annual survey and provided information using an electronic feedback iPad located in the entrance hall to the home. This enabled the provider to address any shortfalls and improve the service.

The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better had been addressed promptly. As a result we could see that the quality of the service was continuously improving.