Maplewood Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s needs were holistically assessed, and they received evidence-based care and treatment from a good staff team who worked well together to ensure people’s needs were met. People’s consent for their care was sought and those who were not able to consent had their rights protected and advocated for by appropriate others. People were encouraged to achieve and experience things that were important to them and to maintain the best health possible.

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 told us they were involved in the assessment of their needs and development of their care plans. A person said, “It was discussed when I first moved in.” Relatives also told us they were involved in people’s initial assessments when moving into the service as well as monthly reviews. One relative shared, ‘Nursing team are concerned with the holistic wellbeing of the residents & not just their medical needs & provide excellent nursing care & leadership.’

The registered manager told us before a person moves into the service a comprehensive assessment is completed to ensure the service and staff can support people’s needs. They told us care plans are developed everyday with new information and changes as they come up.

People were involved in the assessment of their needs. Care plans reflected their preferences and involvement. For example, people’s favourite foods and what they did not like; what aspects of care people were able to do independently or which they needed staff to prompt or complete. People’s communication needs were assessed, and each person had a communication plan which included details of how best to engage with them. For example, one person who had hearing difficulties refused to use their hearing aid and the plan included other strategies to ensure staff could communicate with them effectively. Health, social and well-being needs were assessed, and other professionals were involved in assessments where necessary, such as dieticians, speech and language therapists or community mental health teams. Staff used recognised assessment tools to assess some risks, such as skin integrity, malnutrition or deterioration in health. The provider had a system in place to ensure risk assessments and care plans were regularly reviewed.

We did not receive any specific feedback from people about receiving evidenced based care and treatment. However, people and staff were complimentary about the carers and nurses skills and knowledge and people told us relevant health care professionals were involved in their care. This ensured people received evidence-based care and treatment.

Staff we spoke to were aware of legislation and best practice guidance that should be followed to ensure people received evidence-based care. A staff member said, “To ensure best practice refer to NICE guidance and use BNF for information about medicines.” NICE guidance is the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence which gives best practice guidance for health care professionals. BNF refers to British National Formulary which provides key information on the selection, prescribing, dispensing and administration of medicines.

Nurses used up to date clinical guidance to inform their practice, using relevant organisations and resources. Nurses maintained their practice through educational sites, such as NHS e-learning. Additional training was implemented such as wound care training from the Tissue Viability Nurses. People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. Food preferences, allergies and intolerances were documented, and people were able to choose their meals to meet their needs. For example, a vegetarian option was offered each day to meet people’s social and cultural dietary needs. People who were at risk of choking were provided with modified diets which were plated in the kitchen and labelled with the person’s name and items. This ensured the right meal got to the right person. There were enough staff to support people who needed assistance, either in the dining room or in their rooms.

People told us the staff were really good and the service managed well. Feedback we received listed all staff faculties within the home and was positive about all of the teams and how they supported good care delivery.

All staff we spoke with without exception were highly positive about working at the service and with each other as a team. All staff were passionate about their roles, ensuring people had the best possible care. Comments included, “I get to work with some amazing and caring people. My management team are all very supportive every day that I am there, and I always feel I can always go to them! Our residents are amazing, and it is an honour to care and support them on a daily basis! I love working at Maplewood, really is a fun and wonderful place to be.”, “Absolutely love it working here and adore it…it’s the team, the managers, the whole place in general.” The managers shared, ‘team building is really important to us to further strengthen our teams.’

Feedback from the local GP surgery was positive about their experience of working with Maplewood Court Care Home. They said, “I have a very good rapport with Maplewood, the manager, has always supported the surgery and vice versa. There is a harmonious relationship between the practice and the care home.”

There was a whole home approach adopted by the management and the staff at Maplewood Court Care Home which enabled cohesive care and support. There were systems in place to support staff and teams to work together across the service such daily handover and communication log to share important messages.

People felt staff supported them to live healthier lives. A person said, “They are always encouraging me to drink more” A relative said, “They look after all of [loved one’s] health needs.” During our visit we also heard staff arranging an appointment for a person who had a toothache to address their oral health needs. The activity team encouraged people to take regular exercise by providing a variety of exercise-based activities each day, for example noodle aerobics or yoga. People enjoyed these sessions and during our assessment were actively engaged completing exercises to music.

Staff and leaders told us they supported people to have good fluid and nutritional intake. Staff were able to describe the process they followed to raise concerns about people’s health. They gave examples of issues they had identified and which professionals they referred to, to support better health such as the dietician for changes in weight or speech and language therapy referrals for concerns with swallowing. There were also champion roles within the service such as Medication or Memory Champions. The manager told us, ‘This gives staff members the opportunity to get more involved in specialist areas of the home and aid their development with us which can only enhance our residents care.’

People had their health care needs assessed and had access to a range of health professionals if required. For example, the GP, a paramedic, specialist nurses or dieticians. Staff supported people to make healthy food choices and monitored food and fluid intake if this was required. Where possible some people were supported to manage their own health care needs, for example, one person chose to self-medicate with one of their medicines and staff were supportive of this. Nurses and care staff had good knowledge of people’s healthcare needs and knew how to support them to achieve good outcomes. However, not all health needs had full documentation present in relation to risk management plans and monitoring records and although there was no evidence of harm to anyone there was potential for harm to occur. This was raised during the assessment and the management team immediately addressed this.

People felt that staff looked after them well and helped them improve. A person said, “We are working on me being out of bed sitting in my chair as I have had pressure sores so need to be able to change positions as I can’t do that myself.” A relative said their loved one’s health needs were monitored “really well, the nursing staff are excellent, on hand if needed.” A relative shared, ‘There are numerous activities to both help residents mobility and encouragement to help them participate in group activities.’ Another shared, ‘My [loved one's] physical and mental decline have both been reversed, [loved one] is like a new [person]. I cannot praise highly enough.’

Monitoring and improving outcomes were important to the staff practice at Maplewood Court Care Home. Staff told us, “We always try to improve their well-being and improve their quality of life.” The staff member gave an example of a person who came to the service having had lots of falls and described how they “encouraged [person] to exercise more, to use frame right and teach [them]. When [person] feels unsure be able to support and be close to build up confidence.” Staff also told us about people who came for respite and then they improved their mobility post-surgery, and they did return home.

People living in Maplewood Court Care Home experienced positive outcomes using evidence-based care and clinical guidance. There were systems in place to monitor people’s care and inform treatment which improved outcomes. For example, people who were prone to constipation had appropriate monitoring in place, this highlighted when interventions were required, interventions were documented which had led to improved health for the person. Managers and staff strove for continuous improvement by sharing and using lessons learnt from adverse incidents to improve outcomes for people such as reduced incidents and maintaining independence where possible.

Most people told us staff always asked if it was okay before they entered people’s rooms. One person said although staff did not always knock their “door was always open.”

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and sought consent from people who were able to give this. Staff explained how they supported people to understand information and make decisions about their care. One staff member said, “We always assume capacity, we don’t assume dementia means someone doesn’t have capacity.” The registered manager told us they completed a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) tracker to ensure applications had been made where relevant if there had been a decision to deprive someone of their liberty, in their best interest, where they lacked capacity to keep themselves safe.

People’s consent was documented in their care plans. Information was provided to them in a way they could understand. The service worked closely with family, friends and advocates where necessary to ensure people had maximum choice and control. Decisions about people's care was respected. For example, one person wanted invasive procedures to investigate an issue they had been experiencing, this was against external healthcare professionals advice and the service advocated this for them. Staff highlighted risks to people who chose to make unwise decisions about their care. People had decision specific capacity assessments and best interest decision were made where necessary. Where a person was deemed to lack capacity, applications had been made to deprive them of their liberty. These were recorded and monitored to ensure they remained current and appropriate authorisations were in place.