Maple Dene

Updated 23 January 2019

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 comprehensive inspection took place on 12 December 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector, an assistant inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. Prior to this inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service such as notifications and the provider information return. Notifications are events that happen in the service the provider is required to tell us about. We also considered the last inspection report and information that had been sent to us by other agencies. We contacted commissioners who had a contract with the service.

During the inspection, we spoke with seven people who used the service, and six relatives of people who used the service for their views about the service they received. We spoke with the registered manager, the deputy manager, the regional manager, a senior care worker, two care staff and the chef. We also spoke with a visiting health professional. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at the care records of two people who used the service. The management of medicines, staff training records, staff files, as well as a range of records relating to the running of the service. This included audits and checks, the management of fire risks, policies and procedures, complaints and meeting records.

Updated 23 January 2019

The inspection took place on 12 December 2018 and was unannounced.

Maple Dene is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service accommodated up to 40 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people living in the home.

At our last inspection on 27 April 2016 we rated the service ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘good’ overall. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring which demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People continued to receive a safe service. Medicine administration records were completed by staff safely. Risks associated with people’s needs had been assessed and measures were in place to reduce these. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and safe recruitment procedures for staff were in place. Accidents and incidents were monitored to identify any trends and measures were put in place to reduce the likelihood of these happening again.

People continued to receive an effective service. Staff received the training and support they required including specialist training to meet people’s individual needs. People were supported with their nutritional needs. The staff worked well with external health care professionals, people were supported with their needs and accessed health services when required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were followed.

People received care from staff who were very kind and compassionate. Staff supported people on an individual basis and focused on them as a person. Feedback from people, relatives and healthcare professionals was extremely positive and complimentary. People’s rights to privacy were respected by the staff and their dignity was maintained and upheld at all times. People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support needs by a provider who valued their input. People’s independence was encouraged and promoted.

People continued to receive a responsive service. Their needs were assessed and their support was planned with them and or their relative where required. Staff knew and understood people’s needs well. People received opportunities to pursue their interests and hobbies, and social activities were offered. There was a complaints procedure available if this was needed.

People continued to receive a well-led service. The monitoring of service provision was effective because shortfalls had been identified and resolved. There was an open and transparent and person-centred culture with adequate leadership. People were asked to share their feedback about the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.